Driving without a rear window isn’t a big deal - see, for example, nearly every cargo delivery van on Earth. I have to imagine the stubborn refusal to add standard physical controls back to the cockpit has more potential for trouble than an impeded rear view.
I wonder if there’s NHTSA data on this specifically for passenger cars? Maybe incidents caused by blocking the driver’s rear view (with furniture or people or whatever) versus fumbling around with a touchscreen or a joystick?
What I'd really like to see is less software in an EV, complete isolation between higher and lower functions, normal physical controls and an ability to run the thing entirely disconnected from the manufacturer's dragnet. It should be able to charge and be driven with all critical instruments working fully disconnected from anything and without software updates.
My colleagues who drive EVs regularly are always having a panic about software updates which break things.
I currently don't own a car as I live in a big city but I do rent one occasionally and did own a Model S for a very short time. If I was to buy a car I'd like an EV next time, but not in the current state of things.
Man, that’s just not true. I live in NYC and the number of things accessible to me and my family via public transit or bike is mind boggling. Then, when we want to leave the city for a few days we rent a car. Costs less than car insurance would be over a year, let alone maintainence, upfront cost, etc.
Everyone can live their life in the way of their own choosing, I don’t begrudge anyone who owns a car or anything like that. But I assure you it’s very, very possible to be free without owning a car.
New York is really the only exception in the US to this - world class public transportation system both within downtown areas and out to the suburbs and beyond (Acella is what all of AmTrak should have been like).
Even here in San Francisco you need a car to get around efficiently (or use Uber which comes to a point where you might as well pay for a car), plus it's impossible to fully enjoy the natural beauty further afield without a car.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. The Acella sucks if you have to depend on it. As does Amtrak. It's expensive and crappy. Public transportation is designed for getting people from the boroughs into the city center, not the other way around. If you use public trans for leaving the city it's very difficult to get from the train station to your final destination, there's just so few options.
I live in NYC (Upper East Side in Manhattan) and I don't think I could live without a car. It's just so nice to be able to leave whenever you want. On your schedule, in your own private space. I don't drive around in the city - driving here is stressful and a huge drag. But if you ever want to go hiking or biking outside the city, or leave for any reason, having your own car is a blessing.
I'm not saying you'll save money by owning a car here, that's definitely not true. It's a luxury item in this city. But it is very nice to have one at your disposal.
But I don’t “happen” to live in NYC. I wasn’t even born here, I chose to live here. While NYC is pretty rare in the US a walkable dense city isn’t rare worldwide.
My point is that freedom can come in different forms. A car is one route to one form of freedom but counter to the OPs assertion I’m absolutely not missing out not owning a car. I’ve just taken a different path, one that’s available to others too.
Congratulations, but this doesn't have anything to do with what they said.
My point is that freedom can come in different forms.
No one said anything about this.
They just said cars give people freedom of movement which is true. You're anecdotes about riding the subway doesn't impact this in one way or the other. I think you're making the common blunder of someone pointing out an effect and then misunderstanding that to mean only that thing has that effect.
OP said that I’m missing out by not having a car, my point was simply that I know I’m not missing out. I’m honestly kind of amazed we’re now four posts deep in what was a not particularly important comment chain, perhaps I should expected a snark-filled response when I invoked the dreaded letters “NYC”, I should have known better.
I think you should have expected something when you thought you taking a subway means there is no point to anyone being able to drive anywhere they want.
Strange because that’s very obviously not close to what I said. But you’ve clearly started at a conclusion then worked backwards from there, so who am I to correct a work of fiction?
In a big city, a car is a massive impediment as you have to find somewhere to put it. Every five years or so I forget this and drive into London for something and immediately regret it.
Yeah I hire one if I need it. Which is about 4 times a year max. I live in London UK and have a really damn good public transport system that stops outside my house, a bicycle and a massive airport on my doorstep. Incidentally I'm actually on a bus on the way to pick up a hire Polestar at the moment because I have a funeral to get to on Monday...
(Brit living in SF here) Given that this forum is slanted towards America, you have to appreciate that the quality of public transport in London is nothing like what we have here in the US other than New York City.
You're not wrong about London (I never owned a car when I lived there and that was a decade before Uber) but your worldview is skewed. If you look at American history from the last century, in cities like Los Angeles the car companies actually bought public transport railways and dismantled them in order to promote a car culture. And this is what we have.
If you live in any decent large city in Asia it's not an issue. I haven't owned a car in 12 years since I've moved to Singapore, then Bangkok and then Hong Kong. I wouldn't need a car in Tokyo, Seoul, Osaka, Taipei, Shanghai or Shenzhen either. Gosh, many people in Melbourne or Sydney don't have one.
Just because it can be done doesn’t mean it’s not a worse driving experience. Visibility has been getting gradually worse for a long time (I presume for crash safety reasons). I learned to drive on my dad's old early-90s era Maxima, which had the best visibility I've ever experienced in a car, and I still miss it!
Let me ask you this, how much do you drive? Although I don’t drive much anymore, just daily to and from work, there were periods I would have to drive 250-800km twice per week to get to site(Sweden is a pretty big country).
The rear view mirror is absolute advantage. It’s the only way to know wtf is going on right behind you.
Well, for one, I believe they’re using a digital mirror so the practical purpose of the rear view window is still present.
I actually don’t use the rear view most days when driving. I’m planning to put a camper on my truck that would block the rear windows. Been giving it a test to make sure I’m okay without the read.
For the most part, I don’t really miss it. I have found that some small cars that ride my bumper tend to disappear - or at least require more visual searching.
The situation that I miss it the most is when I’m stopped at a light and visually checking that a car behind me isn’t going to come barreling into me.
What you say applies for the majority of driving time, but the question really is how it performs when a driver is in a situation with high risk of an accident.
Glancing , peripheral , situational awareness is important to avoid accidents. The once a couple of years situation
> Driving without a rear window isn’t a big deal - see, for example, nearly every cargo delivery van on Earth.
Yeah, it's totally fine, as long as you have both side mirrors. It'd be nice if they put bigger mirrors on the side if they're killing the rear window though. Although they're pushing a screen to replace the mirror, I guess.
I haven't used one of those in a while, but I did have a rental with a screen / mirror and found it really strained my eyes to change from far focus on driving to near focus on the screen... Might be better when the screen is not also a mirror, I could kind of see the mirrored image if I was far focused even if the screen was on... it was pretty distracting until I figured out how to turn off the screen part.
The “long as you have both side mirrors” is kind of interesting nuance. My 1980 civic back in the day only had driver side mirror from the factory which seems common-enough in older cars - it isn’t totally necessary anyway if there’s visibility. assume modern cars would only lack them if it’s damaged or similar.
I can switch the camera in my car to replace the normal mirror. This is useful when the trunk is full.
I hate it, though, because it forces your eyes to quickly and repeatedly adapt to short vision (the image is close to you), then again on the road etc.
There is no such a problem with the normal mirror which shows objects far away so you you don't need to adapt when switching between forward and back view
Reading https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908311/, it can take half a second (for the oldest age group, in the dark) before an eye even starts to accommodate and, if I’m interpreting RTI correctly, easily another half a second to accommodate. Makes me wonder how sharp an image one needs to see in the rear view mirror to drive. Or do drivers really look to such a screen for over a second while driving?
And of course, getting rid of the front window, too, would get rid of the accommodation issue, but I do not see that being accepted by car drivers soon.
> it forces your eyes to quickly and repeatedly adapt to short vision
Sounds like a big nono for "older" people. I'm having difficulty focusing on the dashboard nowadays. Progressive glasses could fix it, but the short distance area is at the bottom, so you would have to tilt your head alot to see the mirror.
I bought one of those well reviewed mirror dash cameras and it replaced the center rear view mirror. I hated it and returned it because this extra visual burden and couldn't understand why anyone liked these.
When backing up out of a parking space I much prefer the turnaround method since I lose all my periphery vision that keeps from backing up into the path of other vehicles or people, etc. My back up camera even has a warning for that basically saying "be aware of your surroundings while backing up, because this tiny cone of vision on the screen definitely won't help you with that". Of course modern cars are so high up I can't see anything directly behind me without the camera.
Is it physically possible to mitigate this issue by placing some sort of lens on the screen, so you would need to actually focus "to far" in order to see it?
> "a new kind of immersive rear occupant experience" where passengers are "cocooned"
I am familiar with this design, the passenger is cocooned by a ceiling height designed for a person less than 5'6 (because the car looks way cooler on the outside). If you are any taller you get the transformative experience of a ride in "landscape mode" with your head rotated 90 degrees.
You probably don't spend a lot of time staring out of the rear window though. The windows at the side are still there and the glass roof now goes further back.
1) Driver's rear view is solved by using a camera, but what about rear passengers. Rear window provides natural light to come in. It might get pretty dark inside without it.
2) How will it impact the DMV driving test? In a recent driving test for a kid, the instructor explicitly said that if the kid reversed by looking at the camera view in the screen, she will fail the kid. With this car, there is no rearview window, so reverse can only be done by looking at the camera view, there's no looking back while reversing.
> if the kid reversed by looking at the camera view in the screen, she will fail the kid
That's interesting, my compact sedan doesn't have a camera, and you can still see something in the rear view mirror, so I feel perfectly comfortable reversing into tight spaces or over longer distances.
Sometimes I drive rentals (different Toyotas) that have cameras, and I vastly prefer the camera for reversing. When leaving a parking spot, you can immediately see the cars in the lane you're reversing into. You can see directly behind the rear bumper (kids, dogs, forgotten baggage). Running over someone's kid in a busy parking lot is something I'm really terrified of, and the camera eases my mind a lot.
When I did a driving test in the US (which was admittedly a complete joke compared to a UK one I did two decades earlier) I explicitly got told that it was fine to use the camera alone.
Maybe its not a big difference long term, but a camera is 2D, whereas a mirror provides a 3D image with depth, allowing to assess distances naturally. It also has a much better resolution and dynamic range, works much better in the dark, etc.
On the flip side, camera rear view can have automatic gain, so you can see much better in the dark. It can also have a better view due to placement. And as a bonus, no need to adjust between drivers.
My car has both in a combined unit, flip down for regular mirror and up for camera. While I initially thought it would be a gimmick, it didn't take me long to realize I preferred the camera view.
That said I wouldn't want to have a car with camera only, I don't trust the electronics that much and a mirror works better in certain situations.
Sounds like progress. I’m struggling to see any functional downside. Resolution is good enough at that distance from screen (and you generally not need much resolution - just identify a hazard).
You don’t need to move yourself around since view is wide angle.
Look at your computer screen. Now move your head a foot to the side and look at it. Yes there will be some difference but unless you have a privacy filter it should be quite easy to view the screen still.
Same for the rear view screen/mirror assembly. The viewing angle at which it it's fine to watch in screen-mode is considerable. In mirror-mode it has to be very close to function as intended.
My SO is about a head shorter than me, and likes to sit in a quite different position. Yet for us the screen-mode works fine without adjustment. When using the mirror there's a significant adjustment needed. I guess for other couples it might need adjustment regardless, but I imagine for many it will be fine in screen-mode.
Though I have no idea how much it varies between cars though. Could be ours has a wider viewing angle than other cars.
My biggest issue with Audi and others that try replacing mirrors with cameras is that you need to refocus your eyes. That takes time. I have the same issue with the speedometer: I'm curious how many accidents have already happened because the driver is mandated to remove focus from the road just to check their speed.
The HUD is amazing. Interior screens are only great while not driving.
On my car the camera is placed such that it rarely gets blocked by dirt or debris. I sometimes flip back to the mirror only to find I can't see anything due to dirt on the rear window. Flip back to camera and I see just fine.
I can't see shit out of the back window without some work on my part on many cold mornings (with electric defrost), but a tiny little camera-heater could be both fast and efficient (which is more important for EVs).
I can wipe a small camera lens off faster than I cash wash a uselessly-filthy back window enough that it is better than a streaky opaque mess, as I've had happen to the back window on fairly mundane (if long) road trips with regular road grime.
Fewer windows means a cooler interior when it has been baking in the sun
It's a lot harder to get distracted by light and glare from phone screens or whatever that back-seat people are using when there's no interior mirror pointed in that direction to begin with
It doesn't sound all bad. And since it's got rather good cameras, that sure does sound better than the vehicles I've spent time driving that had neither rear windows nor any cameras.
I can't think of many real negatives. Since I got a parking camera in my car, I don't use the rear view mirror at all during parking. If there is some way I can get more accurate information about the blind spots around my car (and this camera seems to be one such thing), I'd much prefer that.
There will be cleaning and electronics problems but every technology comes with its own set of issues. The only thing I can think of is the general idea that low tech. often has less moving moving parts and is more resilient but I'm not sure that applies here.
Subaru does it this way. The rear window defrost has a higher density of heating wire around the camera, so on a frosty morning, it clears up very fast
Whilst it feels strange initially and I caught myself thinking why?
Most car reverse cameras for 360 degree cameras provide very good visibility outside of the rear of the car. I don't necessarily see the problem with having a rear windscreen, but that's up to the buyer
My recent model Subaru Ascent came with a "smart mirror". When enabled, the rear view mirror is actually a display, showing a view of what a rear camera, mounted high in the rear window, sees. This is not the backup camera, it's got one of those too, down by the license plate.
At first I had a little bit of skepticism. I figured it would be useful when the back is full of cargo or whatever, but limited beyond that.
A year on and I scarcely use the "real" mirror. The image on the camera is brighter at night, has less obstruction of the cars pillars and such, and it's automatic gain control reduces the amount of blinding a big truck behind me can cause
I have a Subaru Outback and the back up camera is basically useless during the winter. I'll clean it before I leave in the morning and it will be covered in filth the next time I put the car in reverse. Even rain seems to cause it grief. Maybe they've improved the design since 2019 though.
When the backup camera isn't covered in grime it really helps with parking though.
On my Renault Megane e-Tech the cameare is placed at the top of the rear window, and due to the small "shelf" on the top of the roof above, it's quite sheltered.
I often find that I forget to wipe the rear window because I have no trouble seeing with the camera.
However the wiper does go over the area covered by the camera, so with snow in particular the wiper works wonders.
This is actually not an issue. Nearly every single car manufacturer uses the exact same camera module, and have for like a decade now.
The standard is that head units have a composite video input that simply gets switched to whenever you put it into reverse, and any overlays are done in the head unit.
These are utterly standard parts, and the entire auto industry could die tomorrow and you would still have zero problem sourcing this part for decades to come.
It doesn't matter which make or model of car you have.
On the ascent, it's up very high on the car, slightly under the spoiler. It's got the washer fluid spout right above it, and is at the apex of the curve of the rear wiper, so any grime gets maximum detergent and wiping action. Since it's a tiny little patch, maybe a couple square inches, it's easy to keep clean, as opposed to the whole windshield
Interestingly enough, the actual "backup camera" is mounted lower than the rear view camera, down by the license plate. When you run the rear sprayer, it actually squirts a bit of fluid over the lense of that camera too. Still not as good a solution as Mercedes, who just hides the camera behind a flap when it's not in use, but better than nothing
On cars I did drive a rear view camera allows to stop exactly were you want but gives a poor situation awareness. Also the wider camera angle the smaller are objects on a screen - there is no such problem when you can turn your head around to see with your eyes.
Aside from regulation, I've had a few (rare) occurences in a Tesla where it's lagged or a camera has glitched out for a few seconds. Those few seconds could be critical on a road at speed.
A single second is a very long time, typical reaction time is like a tenth of that. Especially at 1 mph. Not only is that a very long time, at 1mph, you are moving less than 2 feet per second. At that speed, your only worry is really a kid diving immediately under your tires.
Kids aren't always smart, observant and logical, pets - doubly so. And even the smartest (but very unlucky) adult can just stumble and land down right under your tires.
Quite improbable - for sure, but not exactly impossible.
Consider the case where you are driving slowly and you notice a car speeding at your rear with what appears to be no intention of stopping.
A mirror allows you to quickly judge the velocity of the other vehicle so you can consider moving out of its way to avoid a collision. There’s too much lag and uncertainty with a rear-view camera.
It isn't unusual for drivers who are actively maintaining situational awareness to monitor traffic behind them in advance of planned lane changes, etc.
Sure - but as the article points out there are safety and efficiency wins by removing the rear window. Anyways if it’s a terrible decision I’m sure the reviews will point that out.
My point was just that the Luddite “computers are bad” argument is silly when all modern cars and planes and everything else is fly-by-wire. If computers fail, the world fails - good thing engineering isn’t just a faf and reliability engineering actually works!
It also disallows drivers behind the vehicle to see through it to see what’s in front. Of course there are plenty such vehicles on the road already (trucks, RVs, etc), but it would probably be detrimental to road safety if this feature becomes popular among automakers.
Actually, this got progressively worse over time: older cars have really big and non-tinted rear windows, so no problem to "see through" (but I wouldn't want to land on the roof after an accident with one of those). Newer cars, even non-SUVs, are already worse in this regard (smaller windows, often tinted, bigger headrests). If you add SUVs, pickups, vans etc. to the mix it gets even worse.
Or, they could "solve" it by installing extra screens on the walls showing ads for package holidays. Of course, that would raise the temperature inside, but it's something that could be solved with extra AC, which would need large batteries and more frequent stops, but that could be solved by... seems to be the way of "innovation" these days, we no longer fix what's broken, but break what works and charge extra for it.
Just pointing out that while you apparently feel you're living in a dystopia, I don't feel the same. Things aren't perfect but they're definitely not dystopian from my point of view. And come on, who doesn't enjoy being snarky now and then?
And it could be that you don’t live in dystopia, but lack the willpower or observational acumen to acknowledge it. Perhaps instead of slinging weak insults and complaining about dystopian life, you should go do something about it?
Neither of us know anything about how the other lives. It's entirely plausible that either of us could be in total denial of our surroundings (which is a recurring personality in the VC/entrepreneurial sphere).
I mean, global warming, war in Europe, russia/NK/China/Iran attacking democracies, financial equality, unaffordable housing across the globe and everything keeps getting worse and not better but we just keep on buying new iPhones every year - not realizing that we live in dystopian world is delusional. I have plenty of hobbies, volunteering for 2 nonprofits in 2 different cities and enjoying life, but I do realize that I’m very much privileged even though I live from paycheck to paycheck.
Global warming sucks, but I’ve become personally invested in doing my little part to fight it and to push for green alternatives in my town, among my friends and family, etc. I could choose to despair about how humans as a whole may never take enough action, or should’ve taken more action 40 years ago, but dooming doesn’t help anyone. Instead I’m excited about all of the new ideas, ingenuity and technology developed to fight global warming and climate change every day.
War has always been a constant throughout human history, today is no different. I don’t think it’s very dystopian. I’m glad I’m on the side that stands for liberty and democracy, and I wish we could do more for Ukraine right now. That said, I rate the risk of WWIII pretty low, and the same for nuclear war — especially after Iran’s attack on Israel led to nothing.
I don’t have much to say about financial inequality, but unaffordable housing is probably the most dystopian thing you’ve listed. I’m from a small town where it isn’t too bad of a problem (houses are around 300k [1] for reference) so I don’t have much experience with this. I can see how this could make a lot of young people despair.
So all that to say: I’m not delusional — and I’d appreciate it if you don’t call me so. I’m aware of the problems that we all face, I just don’t think they’re so insurmountable as to say we’re living in a dystopia. I have a lot of hope for the human race.
[1] Around 300k usd for 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 2k sq ft and 0.4 acres of property, after a quick search for a nice house on a realtor’s website here in town.
I am not angry, I just observe trends that started with the realisation that raw materials can be sold for more if they are transformed into products. The unbound inventiveness of the human race never ceases to amaze me, but I also see how some of it develops along paths that result in solutions which are overly complex and require even more complex solutions to "fix" them.
Leasing cars has been quite normal for decades. I remember being taken in a leased company car to the game shop to buy transport tycoon once. Not transport tycoon deluxe, the original transport tycoon.
I find it interesting that it's called a Swedish car company when it's owned by a Chinese car company and none of its cars are produced in Sweden. Is national attribution of companies meaningless?
Maybe every company should open an office in Sweden and call itself Swedish.
I wonder if there’s NHTSA data on this specifically for passenger cars? Maybe incidents caused by blocking the driver’s rear view (with furniture or people or whatever) versus fumbling around with a touchscreen or a joystick?