Bonefishblues wrote:I'm not sure dash-mounted is similar to RVM, is it, unless I've missed cars with high-level screens? In which case, why bother, I wonder, if adjacent to the mirror itself?
If you're referring to my post, I said where in lieu of a RVM.
But even if as an addition to a RVM, a camera system can provide so much more information, e.g. actual distance measurement, a view right down to rear bumper level, guiding lines etc.
Bonefishblues wrote:I'm not sure dash-mounted is similar to RVM, is it, unless I've missed cars with high-level screens? In which case, why bother, I wonder, if adjacent to the mirror itself?
If you're referring to my post, I said where in lieu of a RVM.
But even if as an addition to a RVM, a camera system can provide so much more information, e.g. actual distance measurement, a view right down to rear bumper level, guiding lines etc.
I was referencing this part of your post:
"...place them in a similar position to the mirror itself..."
According to Honest John, where I saw this yesterday, the screens will be in the doors, presumably where a driver would instinctively look for their mirrors.
I think there's a lot more to being a good driver than technical skill. That's obviously important, but a driver needs their faculties and the right temperament. It seems to me that if a driver is careless/selfish about things like prompt dipping, they'll be equally careless/selfish whether their dipping is manual or automatic. If they are downright aggressive, then they will tend to use their headlights to be aggressive (and that seems to apply to some cyclists as well as drivers.) This is why I mentioned humility above. Reflecting on how we might have done better is a valuable personal attribute and that particularly applies to driving. Concentrating on how good we are is a dangerous weakness.
I also get the impression that cars are a bit like bike groupsets: anything cheaper than mine is crap, anything more expensive is a waste of money.
Bonefishblues wrote:I'm not sure dash-mounted is similar to RVM, is it, unless I've missed cars with high-level screens? In which case, why bother, I wonder, if adjacent to the mirror itself?
If you're referring to my post, I said where in lieu of a RVM.
But even if as an addition to a RVM, a camera system can provide so much more information, e.g. actual distance measurement, a view right down to rear bumper level, guiding lines etc.
I was referencing this part of your post:
"...place them in a similar position to the mirror itself..."
Are there cars where the screen is placed thus?
There are vehicles which have no rear view mirror and instead use a camera. e.g. Motorhomes. See also Thirdcrank's post above.
Airsporter1st wrote: If you're referring to my post, I said where in lieu of a RVM.
But even if as an addition to a RVM, a camera system can provide so much more information, e.g. actual distance measurement, a view right down to rear bumper level, guiding lines etc.
I was referencing this part of your post:
"...place them in a similar position to the mirror itself..."
Are there cars where the screen is placed thus?
There are vehicles which have no rear view mirror and instead use a camera. e.g. Motorhomes.
You said in a similar position to the RVM. Do they have the screen in a similar position to the RVM? Or are the dash-mounted? IMHO that's not similar.
PDQ Mobile wrote:^+1 Though there's nothing wrong in taking a pride in being good at something-which includes the self critical " how could I have done that better".
A busted mirror costs ? A busted camera costs?
A mirror, unless physically broken, will last a very long time. A camera and all its attendant paraphernalia?
A camera and 'attendant paraphenalia' i.e. screen and cable, can be significantly cheaper than a side mirror and as time goes on they'll be cheaper still. Its also less likely to be physically broken than a side mirror. Just ride down any narrow street in the bigger towns and see how many wing mirrors are missing, hanging off or broken.
In any case, what is your objection to shifting your gaze down a few degrees and refocussing to see whats behind you as opposed to shifting your gaze up a few degrees and refocussing to see what's in behind you? Similarly, do you never check your speedo, your fuel gauge, oil temperature etc???
PDQ Mobile wrote: ... A busted mirror costs ? A busted camera costs?
A mirror, unless physically broken, will last a very long time. A camera and all its attendant paraphernalia?
I think this type of question is a central issue in the debate about "advances" in technology. Just because something is new and possible, it's not necessarily better. It's horses for courses. I'm in the midst of an ongoing problem at Thirdcrank Towers and part of this has involved repeated surveys of several underground rainwater drains. A camera can now achieve what would one have meant digging for a look. OTOH, if you can see something directly with your eyes, then a camera just adds complications.
Re the mirrors -vs- cameras debate, I'm not judging either way but a couple of extra points are that wing mirrors don't help fuel economy and when they are large - eg on some HGV's and buses, they can cause serious injury to pedestrians. It's a while since I ploughed through the descriptions of motorway accidents but people on the hard shoulder on the offside of their vehicle are particularly vulnerable to being hit by the mirrors of passing trucks. Not long after I had retired, I chanced upon the scene of a fatal crash in which a pedestrian was killed by the head-height mirror on a slowly-moving bus. That or similar crashes may be why around here at least, all bus mirrors have a flo-yellow case and mounting.
Airsporter1st wrote: In any case, what is your objection to shifting your gaze down a few degrees and refocussing to see whats behind you as opposed to shifting your gaze up a few degrees and refocussing to see what's in behind you? Similarly, do you never check your speedo, your fuel gauge, oil temperature etc???
Thanks, I didn't know about those. That's sensible positioning.
I do of course glance at my speedo and other gauges, glance being the operative word, and where I can through familiarity gain the info I need without a full re-focus being required.
I wouldn't like to be performing a manoeuvre whilst I had a concentrated focus on something below window line. We see the effects of that with texters et al. That is my objection.
PDQ Mobile wrote: ... A busted mirror costs ? A busted camera costs?
A mirror, unless physically broken, will last a very long time. A camera and all its attendant paraphernalia?
I think this type of question is a central issue in the debate about "advances" in technology. Just because something is new and possible, it's not necessarily better. It's horses for courses. I'm in the midst of an ongoing problem at Thirdcrank Towers and part of this has involved repeated surveys of several underground rainwater drains. A camera can now achieve what would one have meant digging for a look. OTOH, if you can see something directly with your eyes, then a camera just adds complications.
Re the mirrors -vs- cameras debate, I'm not judging either way but a couple of extra points are that wing mirrors don't help fuel economy and when they are large - eg on some HGV's and buses, they can cause serious injury to pedestrians. It's a while since I ploughed through the descriptions of motorway accidents but people on the hard shoulder on the offside of their vehicle are particularly vulnerable to being hit by the mirrors of passing trucks. Not long after I had retired, I chanced upon the scene of a fatal crash in which a pedestrian was killed by the head-height mirror on a slowly-moving bus. That or similar crashes may be why around here at least, all bus mirrors have a flo-yellow case and mounting.
For sure to some of that.
Yet perhaps you could use a bright light and a mirror! (on a stick) for checking straight drain runs!!
Not so sure about wing mirror fuel consumption argument.any mirror reduces streamlining. A door mounted mirror provides a better view though 'cos the eye is closer to it. A busted camera or electrics provide no view at all. Extra weight is also a factor in fuel consumption.
I imagine fatalities through mirrors are pretty rare in the stats. Perhaps rarer than people being run over by reversing vehicles?
Airsporter1st wrote: In any case, what is your objection to shifting your gaze down a few degrees and refocussing to see whats behind you as opposed to shifting your gaze up a few degrees and refocussing to see what's in behind you? Similarly, do you never check your speedo, your fuel gauge, oil temperature etc???
Thanks, I didn't know about those. That's sensible positioning.
I do of course glance at my speedo and other gauges, glance being the operative word, and where I can through familiarity gain the info I need without a full re-focus being required.
I wouldn't like to be performing a manoeuvre whilst I had a concentrated focus on something below window line. We see the effects of that with texters et al. That is my objection.
Texters are not concentrating on their driving. Reversing, using mirrors or a camera require focus on the manoeuvre for safe execution and as I've already said, only an idiot does not perform additional visual checks. Nothing changes regardless of whether using a mirror or a camera, but a camera can give a much wider field of view, especially in the vertical plane, together with other useful information.
As you can tell, I'm all in favour of technology which makes life safer and easier and I approach such innovations with an open mind. I had reversing cameras on several of my recent vehicles and I don't on my current vehicle. I really miss it and I certainly would not say I feel any safer not having one.
PDQ Mobile wrote: ... I imagine fatalities through mirrors are pretty rare in the stats. Perhaps rarer than people being run over by reversing vehicles?
I've no idea of current stats in absolute terms or in comparisons, but I'm certainly no fan of automatic reversing alarms as a substitute for either a driver or a banksman looking. I've some experience of either dealing personally with crashes or checking the reports of others who have and I could relate some horrible events. For some reason which I cannot now remember, I had to read a lot of summaries of reports of crashes on the hard shoulder and it sticks in my mind how many were something like a lorry driver climbing the offside of their vehicle to check the security of their load being struck by the nearside mirror of a passing HGV. With the passage of time, I cannot quantify that.
As I said, I'm not arguing one way or the other, just mentioning some things I feel need to be considered.
PDQ Mobile wrote: ... A busted mirror costs ? A busted camera costs?
A mirror, unless physically broken, will last a very long time. A camera and all its attendant paraphernalia?
I think this type of question is a central issue in the debate about "advances" in technology. Just because something is new and possible, it's not necessarily better. It's horses for courses. I'm in the midst of an ongoing problem at Thirdcrank Towers and part of this has involved repeated surveys of several underground rainwater drains. A camera can now achieve what would one have meant digging for a look. OTOH, if you can see something directly with your eyes, then a camera just adds complications.
Re the mirrors -vs- cameras debate, I'm not judging either way but a couple of extra points are that wing mirrors don't help fuel economy and when they are large - eg on some HGV's and buses, they can cause serious injury to pedestrians. It's a while since I ploughed through the descriptions of motorway accidents but people on the hard shoulder on the offside of their vehicle are particularly vulnerable to being hit by the mirrors of passing trucks. Not long after I had retired, I chanced upon the scene of a fatal crash in which a pedestrian was killed by the head-height mirror on a slowly-moving bus. That or similar crashes may be why around here at least, all bus mirrors have a flo-yellow case and mounting.
PDQ Mobile wrote:For sure to some of that.
Yet perhaps you could use a bright light and a mirror! (on a stick) for checking straight drain runs!!
Not so sure about wing mirror fuel consumption argument.any mirror reduces streamlining.
... hence a camera which would eliminate that reduction of streamlining would be beneficial.
PDQ Mobile wrote: A door mounted mirror provides a better view though 'cos the eye is closer to it. A busted camera or electrics provide no view at all. Extra weight is also a factor in fuel consumption.
I imagine fatalities through mirrors are pretty rare in the stats. Perhaps rarer than people being run over by reversing vehicles?
