Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#71

Post by jeremyarussell »

klahnakoski wrote: post #69
adolph wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

and you can use that position to reset your mirrors after the wife drives your car.

Wouldn't it be better just to teach her the better method?

Edit: Thought twice, I suppose not all couples are the same size anyways, so even if she does know they'll be different.

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#72

Post by kbolino »

simcop2387 wrote: post #59
boredguy8 wrote: post #44

Why do you have blind spots in the first place? http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-adjust-your-mirr... "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 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.

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#73

Post by kevinpet »

aresant wrote: post #8
stephengillie wrote: post #2

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 so…

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?

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.

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#74

Post by dhimes »

sp332 wrote: post #47
dhimes wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 su…

While I agree that the sites are useful, HN guidelines request that you submit the original article. That reduces the number of duplicate submissions.

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.

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#75

Post by recursive »

mbell wrote: post #61
stephengillie wrote: post #2

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 so…

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.

I have never seen a car without a passenger side mirror.

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#76

Post by dredmorbius »

CodeMage wrote: post #56
boredguy8 wrote: post #44

Why do you have blind spots in the first place? http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-adjust-your-mirr... "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…

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.

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#77

Post by jonhendry »

aresant wrote: post #8
stephengillie wrote: post #2

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 so…

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?

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.

Post reply on HN