Chris, really, because something is like it is, changing it is asking for a lawsuit? Really? What if the first Tesla had had real time side view monitors aside the speedo? That would be cool. Would you then say that replacing them w the power consumption & music display screens was reason for a lawsuit because there were no longer side view monitors? The only constant is change
On my electric car, I'd like the change to be for the better. ML
Hello Mike,
I appreciate and also understand the frustration. I wrote what I mentioned above for a specific purpose. It is to bring attention to certain points we must all understand. When I stated something on the lines of, "changing it is asking for a lawsuit.." This notion is very common. In multiple studies and with a common knowledge of people in general, people are actually unwilling to 'change' - change can occur if curiosity or attention is achieved. This statement may not seem pertinent enough to the point or even true, but nonetheless thousands of studies from reputable scholars can be accessed in regards to my statements. Getting to the point, in
reference to another post on these forums, Tesla as we all know has engaged in "direct sales" to customers. This is a HARMLESS act in order to minimize the norm (meaning cutting out the middle man or con artists - the Dealership.) You would think that since no harm, no foul (- wrong). New York's politicians are trying to pass legislation to ban such an act from happening (direct sales.) This would evidently loop back to what I said before, "people are unwilling to change." You are 100% correct I would most definitely LOVE to see a camera on the dashboard for the two side mirrors, but lets face facts, the liability is far superior than any customer anxiety over such a product. Tesla WILL play their cards right and they WILL choose to invoke safety over passion. That would evidently mean that mirrors would win the battle on this tail end.
I hope I do not receive a nasty written response in regards to my statements. I am looking at the situation in a general liability sense. I have provided a multitude of reasons,facts, and sources that illustrate my point. But, before I finish up, I would like to provide one more reason on why I hold by my statements and it was greatly enforced by:
Well, I love innovation as much as or more than the next guy, but the other day my center console rebooted itself while I was driving; had that happened to the dashboard instead and I was left mirror less for 45-90 seconds, I'd have gotten a bit flustered for sure. I get that the aerodynamics are key to range, but this strikes me as pushing it a bit...
I believe this quote signifies why I heavily stand by my statements. By law a mirror would have to be situated on the car, which if one would like to argue - is the camera, and then I would agree. But at the point of a console rebooting while driving, this driver lost his mirrors for 45-90 seconds. This would have rendered the car for that time period "illegal" because the vehicle was missing both mirrors, while on the road. If an accident happened to occur during that time, wouldn't that mean it was a software issue? And if it was a software issue, wouldn't that mean that Tesla as an entity was the sole proprietor, catalysis, but also including the scapegoat to this unfortunate incident that could have been evaded if only conventional mirrors were situated on the vehicle? At this point the judge will definitely take what I said into a large consideration and most likely find Tesla guilty of negligence and that is only the start because a massive recall could happen as well.
Mike, I am not fully directing this response to you by no means, but more or less to the vast majority of people who comment on this subject. It is always good to know all the sides before ever claiming the shape. One could only know 3 sides of the story, but miss out on the 4th and happen to claim it as a triangle, when it actually was a square the whole time.
Reference to Federal laws on mirrors:
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=571.111
Reference to State by State laws on mirrors:
http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Mirror_Laws_by_State_(U.S.)
On the contrary, with the proper setup and control software, a camera and screen can be much more cable than a simple mirror. Modern systems can adjust to bright light and compensate much faster than the human eye.
This is true and false, it is a generalized claim. It would be cool if Tesla used a camera with a fisheye lense and then had a proprietary system to calcuate distances in order for the driver to know where the car is, regardless if he can see them or not. For an example lets say that the lights of a car happens to be blinding the camera lense and the driver cannot accurately 'guestimate' the distance of the car on the side of the driver. The computer should already lock on and tell the driver the exact distance and whether or not it is safe enough to pass. This would eliminate the worry for night time glare.
http://youtu.be/i33oMn6TOQI <- This video is a great example of how driving at night with a camera can be extremely dangerous at times when car lights glare into the camera, which in many cases hinder it unusable.
Cameras are good and can be effective, but at what price? Systems that can adjust to bright light, turn from color, IR, or even thermal are not cheap by any means. A conventional mirror could cost $100 or less and a camera well over $1,000. But yes, cameras can be effective. It all depends on what type of lense Tesla uses as well, if they use a fisheye lense, which I mentioned before, it will INACCURATELY portray a vehicle to be MUCH closer or FURTHER than the object actually is, which what I have been saying before, can overall be a safety issue than anything else and I for one would not risk my safety or my passengers safety for any 'cool aerodynamic camera.'
Would you???
