Please, everyone, stop submitting links from PhysOrg and ScienceDaily. I have never ever ever seen anything on those sites that isn't either (1) bullshit or (2) a recycled press release with zero (or often negative) added value. (Sometimes it's both at once.) It only takes ten seconds' googling to find the original source.
I think you are a little harsh in bashing the sources. Their value is that they serve as a distribution of press releases from many sources. That is exactly how a press release is supposed to be used. And I can go to a press-release redistribution site and see press releases from various organizations in a related field instead of having to check each organization individually.
Yes, please filter the bullshit. But submitting from press-release redistribution sites is ok. If it's of further interest, submit the original paper. In this case, the paper (scientific news) is old- it's the step in the business direction that is being disclosed.
Reducing duplicate submissions is an excellent point. I took the guideline to be more along the lines of "don't link articles like 'geez guys look at this cool article I found on wavepackets. Works for me!'" But I can certainly see the value of submitting the original PR if the site simply mirrors it.
This site might not add anything, but it's not blogspam. It includes the full text of the press release. Blogspam is like this: http://www.reastech.org/best-android-phones-available-today/ It just gives a piece or a summary of the article (so they can't be accused of copyright infringement) and is only meant to funnel your eyeballs past their ads.
"The paper advocates adjusting the mirrors so far outward that the viewing angle of the side mirrors just overlaps that of the cabin’s rearview mirror." I've been driving this way for a long time, and it's great. You can already see behind you: you don't need 2 more mirrors showing you the same thing.
I don't know about others, but here's an extract from the article you linked that explains why I have blind spots:
Those who have switched to the SAE's approach swear by it, however, some drivers can't adjust to not using the outside mirrors to see directly behind the car and miss being able to see their own car in the side mirrors.
The reason I need to see a bit of my car in the side mirror is because I need to know not only what is behind me, but also where it is in relation to my car.
True, but as you get used to seeing the vehicle cross from your center mirror to your side mirror, you get a sense of where it is. Your point of reference just changes from your car in the side mirror to the combination of the location of the vehicle in the side mirror and the center mirror. You really just have to get used to it. I swear by this technique now.
For a similar experience: I row, and occasionally use a cycling mirror to keep track of what's behind me -- that is, what's in front of the boat. When rowing (sculling) you face backwards. This occasionally presents navigational issues.
The mirror is almost completely useless. It's rather less useful on water than it would be on a bike.
The problem is orientation.
With a fixed mirror, you know where things are in relation to your vehicle (car, boat, bike, etc.).
With a head-mounted mirror, on a bike, you still have a generally fixed landmark to orient off of: the road, which over short distances exhibits to a good first-order approximation a high degree of linearity. That is: it goes before you, it goes behind you, you can draw a line between two points, and you have a pretty good idea of where things are relative to your position.
In a boat (dingy or rowing shell), there is no road (a straight marked rowing course might be different). Without a mirror, you generally navigate by occasionally checking over your shoulder to see if your dead reckoning is about right, then line up your stern (the back of the boat, but directly in front of your line of site). And you hope that nothing pops up suddenly in front of your bow (a buoy, a fixed marker, a swimmer, driftwood or debris, another boat, a breakwater, a dock, a pier, a sea lion, a cruise ship, a seagull, a submarine, a pelican, a whale .... and yes, I've encountered pretty much all of these at one point or another). You check over your shoulder at reasonably frequent intervals (every 10-20 strokes -- about 100-200 yards).
The mirror gives you some sense that there's something somewhere behind you.
It does a really crap job of telling you just where that something is.
If the field of view is large enough, you might be able to orient off the bow of the boat, but generally it's not and you're not fully stable enough to take advantage of that.
I generally row without the mirror.
And I keep my car's side-view mirrors adjusted so I can just see the sides of my car on the far inside of the mirror, to better judge positions of other vehicles relative to mine, blind spot (US flat mirror standards) be damned.
Having a bit of own-car in the side mirror allows for verification that the mirror is oriented as intended. Is there an orientation test for the SAE recommendation?
Yes, while driving, use cars in the lanes beside you. As a car passes you can adjust your side mirror so it catches the car just as it leaves your rear view mirror. With this setting, the passing car will enter your peripheral vision before it leaves your side mirror.
Once set you can find a head position that allows you see your own car, and you can use that position to reset your mirrors after the wife drives your car.
I've done this for a few years, but the one use case it's worse is when you are in a slow/stopped lane and want/need to switch to a lane that's moving faster, and you need to see far back in that adjacent lane to see approaching cars. In those cases I'll actually move my mirror in, then readjust it out later.
When I explain this to people they think that I am crazy. There is absolutely no need to see the same thing in the side mirrors and the rearview. It should be a seamless transition between them, like a multi-monitor setup.
Not sure why this is news. They've existed in Europe for over a decade. i've had them on my VW Golf almost since I bought it (Mirrors: http://www.ecstuning.com/Volkswagen-Golf_VI--TDI/Exterior/Mi...) they're convex, and variable radius. They're great. MUCH better than the "Car and Driver" technique.
The problem is, as usual, regulator - DOT requires carmakers to sell new cars with a flat drivers side mirror.
I thought that was how you were supposed to adjust the mirrors!
Though I think on some cars this arrangement can leave a blind spot one more lane over (the one next to the one next to you) which isn't as big of a deal since they won't normally be able to cause a problem or even exist on most roads. I haven't finished reading the article but if his mirror solves that issue too it's still an improvement.
I use this mirror set up, but generally without over-the-shoulder checks. I can say that I've nearly hit people while changing lanes on multiple (but infrequent) occasions, when they were originally two lanes away from me, not visible in my mirrors, going slightly faster than me, and then changed lanes to the one beside me. They seem to sneak in during the second or two between when I first look in the mirror and begin the maneuver. It's a rare occurrence, but not rare enough for my comfort. I have my turn signal on the entire time (I start signalling when I intend to turn), and this still happens to me. I'm definitely going to start using over-the-shoulder checks again.
In the United States, regulations dictate that cars coming off of the assembly line must have a flat mirror on the driver's side. Curved mirrors are allowed for cars' passenger-side mirrors only if they include the phrase "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."
Because of these regulations, Hicks's mirrors will not be installed on new cars sold in the U.S. any time soon. The mirror may be manufactured and sold as an aftermarket product that drivers and mechanics can install on cars after purchase. Some countries in Europe and Asia do allow slightly curved mirrors on new cars. Hicks has received interest from investors and manufacturers who may pursue opportunities to license and produce the mirror.
I am an easy sell to jump to conclusions about gov't idiocy but this one is so audacious it seems like there must a relevant reason - so why can't I have a curved mirror that is more efficient?
Curved mirrors are more efficient in one sense but tends to lead people to misjudge distances. Presumably the government think that showing a misleading picture may be worse than not showing one at all, which is not complete idiocy. This mirror apparently doesn't really suffer from that problem, but the legislation didn't anticipate it - which isn't really surprising, it's hardly realistic to expect them to foresee this development.
Any mirror tends to lead people to misjudge distances and speeds. Mirrors are not things we naturally understand and you have to get used to judging how far behind you something is, while looking in front of you. If you're looking in a mirror and something comes in your direction very fast, you tend to step back... directly into the thing coming at you.
Curved mirrors also take getting used to, but I doubt it has ever been shown that the number of errors people make because of using curved mirrors is larger than the number of errors people make while using regular mirrors.
These kinds of rules get introduced because someone thinks "this makes sense", other people reading it think "this makes sense" and nobody with enough actual knowledge about the subject, who cares enough and has enough lobbying power, goes "now wait a second, this is not right".
You seem to be doing exactly what you're condemning them for. Just because your opinion differs from theirs is no reason to assume they are incorrect or that there are no studies involved.
I was explaining that the common argument (curved mirrors cause mistakes) doesn't make any sense (because other mirrors also cause mistakes) and how that argument could lead to a law anyway (because people are very used to regular mirrors and the mistakes they cause). You're reading a judgment into that, but I don't think I wrote one.
I don't condemn anyone for taking decisions based on what seems to make sense, when the stakes aren't very high and in the absence of anyone telling them otherwise. We can't expect decisionmakers to be experts in everything and we can't expect them to hire experts for every little detail. As long as things get changed when the facts are presented, I'm not complaining.
> but I doubt it has ever been shown that the number of errors people make because of using curved mirrors is larger than the number of errors people make while using regular mirrors.
I'm even more interested in the number of errors people make from curved mirrors compared to the number of errors people make from having no mirrors at all (regarding the blind spot area)
Indeed the picture in the article immediately made me think "How do I know how far those cars are away?" The objects in that mirror seem a lot closer than they appear, which strikes me as a different danger.
It's not necessarily that a curved mirror is always worse, there's value in consistency so that drivers don't have to adjust to different cars. If there isn't a lot of value in picking the "right" answer, it may be beneficial for government to mandate one standard "good enough" solution.
I wouldn't be surprised if the original intention was to keep carmakers from putting shitty warped mirrors on the car.
Whatever, at least regulations have mellowed out a bit from the days when you were supposed to have someone walking a ways ahead of you to warn people a car was approaching.
Last I knew cars in the US don't even have to have a passenger side mirror. I remember seeing the old base model Dodge Neon's on the streets with just a driver side window and confirmed they were sold as such, presumably to reduce costs.
No, because there is prior art. I'm not even sure it would stand in the US.
It's been a while since I have not driven a car that has a flat mirror near side (cost cuts and relative driver position makes far side less of a problem. Still, they're often not exactly flat either).
Cars here (Europe) generally have an improved version, as the linear radius was giving too much of a fisheye, which breaks depth linearity. The improved version starts with a quasi-flat mirror for the 2/3rd near the car, while the remainder has an increasing radius (Here's a shot [0]). The result is (when properly seated and mirrors set up) basically enough for the passing car to pop up at the edge of my field of vision when it disappears from the mirror.
He would be able to patent all curved mirrors, just his particular implementation and design. He may have an optimal design that certainly would deserve patent protection.
The question that he has to worry about with the patents is whether or not his 2008 paper was published before or after the non-US patents were applied for. If I'm not mistaken, the US has a one year grace period between public display (publishing an academic paper) and filing for a patent. Whereas Europe et al. do not have a grace period.
Pretty much all cars where I live (Finland) already have non-flat mirrors.
The most common type of mirror on the driver's side in new cars seems to be one which has a flat part (to show objects in their "true size") and a curved part at (to show a wider field of view).
yeah my old polo from the 90s has a drivers mirror that has a flat part and then a second, differently angled section that lets you see the blind spot.
US patents are only valid in the US. He has to obtain a patent in each country separately (other than in the European union where it is possible to get a "European Patent").
yeah. The ideal approach is a flat mirror with a curved one inset either above or below. That way you beg both.
However it seems to me that there is a bit of basic math at work here. The more you fit into a mirror of the same size, the smaller the objects will appear and the further away they will look. That strikes me as a very basic premise and I don't think you can get away from that so easily.
I was thinking of having stacked mirrors, the way tractor trucks do. But your comment made me think: is there a way to have a flat mirror turn transparent, revealing a curved mirror behind it? You could activate the transparency just by using your turn signal.
Bigger vehicles such as buses often have a large flat mirror and a small half-globe shaped mirror attached to them. This provides proper distance and gives a nice wide view when you need it.
I would prefer cameras, but I am not sure if they are still not legal in the US.
Maybe since it is based on tiny flat mirrors (like a disco ball), that law can somehow be loopholed. If the law was based on wanting to avoid distortions, whether the law applies to these new mirrors should be reconsidered? Surely, _some_ common sense exists in US legislature?
Hicks noted that, in reality, the mirror does not look like a disco ball up close. There are tens of thousands of such calculations to produce a mirror that has a smooth, nonuniform curve.
I imagine "tens of thousands of such calculations" is newspaper code for integration.
If someone assigned me the task of making such a mirror, I would start by treating the mirror like a monitor displaying a 3D scene, and calculate the vectors necessary to project a 45 degree view onto the surface of the mirror (i.e. start with a virtual camera behind the mirror such that it has a 45 degree field of view). I would then adjust those vectors so that the image will look like such a projection when seen by a viewer a few feet up and to the right, with the mirror occupying ~15 degrees of the viewer's FOV.
In other words, everything I need to know I learned from video games.
If I were asked to make such a device, I would build a flexible mirror whose curve could be adjusted by an array of attached screws. I'd fix said mirror to a car, and adjust the screws until the desired curve was reached. I'd then measure the curve and duplicate it in a rigid finished product.
It's actually amazing that it took a physicist/mathematician to think of this thing. I doubt I would have come up with the idea. It goes to show how domain knowledge shapes your perception of the world.
When I saw the article title, I immediately knew it was Dr. Hicks because he would talk about his work occasionally in class when it was related to what we were studying.
Also, if you're at Drexel, you should take his math courses. He's easily the best math teacher I've ever had, and I didn't know it until after I graduated. All his classes seemed really easy, but in the last course I took he said something that made me realize how good he was. He said, "Before we get into the math, I want to give you an intuition of how this works." Later I realized that his courses like cryptography and multivariate calculus were so easy is because he knew how to give you that intuition and the mathematics came almost naturally after that.
This is just beautiful. Practical application of maths. I would love to get my hands on one of these when it is done.
Glad that he has a patent for that. He should be justly rewarded for coming out with this road safety feature.
To those that believe that there is prior art, do note that the patent granted is for "Wide angle substantially non-distorting mirror". It is not just any curve mirror, it is unlike normal curve mirror which distorts the image, from the picture, you can see that there doesn't appear to be any distortion, which is what makes his mirror unique
I can't access the actual article, but this doesn't sound like a very substantial bit of work. On its face, it's the type of thing I'd probably expect a decently bright college kid to solve quite well as a week-long project, nothing more.
Even if it was, we don't typically give out patents for mere solutions to novel math problems. Why should this be any different?
> Even if it was, we don't typically give out patents for mere solutions to novel math problems.
Actually, we do give out patents for solutions to problems that involve math (the soluions involving math). Those patents do not cover using the same math for other problems.
Glad that he has a patent for that. He should be justly rewarded for coming out with this road safety feature.
I'd prefer if he was justly rewarded in some manner that doesn't involve him having the legal right to prevent others from using this road safety feature particularly as it probably has a chilling effect on similar improvements.
A lot of new cars I've seen have partial curve to alleviate the blind spot.
But what often goes unmentioned is adjusting an older, flat mirror correctly in the first place. I used to adjust mine so that a tiny portion of my car was in the lower right hand corner of the mirror. After a few years, I realised that adjusting the mirror out, further away from the car, gave me the widest and most practical view for driving of the lane to the left of me.
I already had a side mirror that eliminates blind spot a few years ago on my Peugeot 207 (I live in Europe) although it didn't have such an angle of vision.
Even though it's a neat invention, I still have to vomit every time I read the word "patent". And to say crooks are working hard to bring these to Europe
Being able to patent an actual implementation is somewhat ok, but being able to patent ideas is plain stupid, and they are in the prrocess of importing it to the EU
There are no non-"idea" patents. By their very nature, patents are there to provide a monopoly on novel ideas. If I come up with the design for a new gearing system and patent it, then you have an idea for a substantially similar system and build it, you're violating my patent. It's all about ideas.
Curved mirrors dont eliminate the blind spot, they reduce it. Perhaps this curved mirror reduce the blind spot to a very small area, but I submit a bicycle or pedestrian could still fit in it.
Apparently most people set up their mirrors incorrectly by overlapping view paths, when it would in fact be better if things moved between mirrors without any overlap (e.g. rear view mirror covers the back whilst the side mirrors cover blind spots - no overlap in between).
I've tried it out and it feels rather weird, but I must say I've found it quite effective. I still do head checks, but mostly just out of habit, and it's a good extra check to use just before you change lanes.
I had my previous car set up so that there was only a tiny bit of overlap. This left my mind free of worry about a blind spot between them while giving me full view of everything behind me.
Sadly, my new car's mirrors can't be positioned like this, and I really hate backing up in it. Due to the shape of it, I think the only solution is going to be a camera and video display. If I could find one that had nearly 180 degrees of viewing angle, that would be awesome. I usually don't need to judge where it is, just that there's something there or not.
I have had my side view mirrors setup like this for years and it isn't always better.
The first problem is that you cannot see your car in the side view mirror. This doesn't seem like a big deal, but it can be difficult to judge where everything in the mirror is positioned if you don't have a reference point. You get used to this.
The second issue is that if you have a big straight long line of cars behind that are close together (e.g. traffic on the interstate is at a crawl), you can not see far back on either side of your lane since your mirrors are pointed out and your center mirror is mostly consumed by the vehicle behind you. This makes it difficult to safely merge out of your lane in this situation.
You're right about that, but I don't usually find myself in such situations too often, and when I do I just move my head to get a better view straight back (either side/rear). I find blind spots much more dangerous :D.
Original press release from Drexel University: http://www.drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2012/J... Added value in PhysOrg article: zero.
Please, everyone, stop submitting links from PhysOrg and ScienceDaily. I have never ever ever seen anything on those sites that isn't either (1) bullshit or (2) a recycled press release with zero (or often negative) added value. (Sometimes it's both at once.) It only takes ten seconds' googling to find the original source.