FUTURE PROOF
PH asks why carmakers look for tricksy solutions for non-existent problems
As we drive into the future, think about how we’ll look back. I’m not being metaphorical here. I’m talking about mirrors. Or rather, lipstick rear-view cameras, mounted to car doors because they’re small and present marginally lower drag than glass mirrors. That’ll allow fast cars to go faster and electric ones to go further, which is why they’re on the Audi e-tron. They are a thoroughly dreadful idea.
Most people will crash before they’ve even turned out of the dealership. You look at the mirror but… you’re looking at a camera lens, so you have to avert your gaze down to the screen. By which time you’ve taken the side of the car off on a bollard. But after some hours you do train yourself to look at the screen. Moving on, then…
It’s really, and I mean really, hard to judge distance with these screens. And on a motorway particularly, this deprives you of something essential. With a glass mirror, the slight parallax between your two eyes gives binocular depth perception. With a screen, both eyes see the exact same thing, so your sole distance cue is the apparent size of what you’re looking at. This is diabolically disconcerting and never goes away.
There’s more. Next time you drive, notice how often you move your head to get a different angle of view on the door mirror – lean in to see further out, raise your head and see lower down. Not here. The picture doesn’t change. You have to adjust it via the interface, then adjust it back.
And also, looking in a glass mirror, you’re focused on the distance the reflected object is from your eyes. With this new gadget you’re focused on the screen, which is close – even closer than the speedo. So you’re having to re-focus each time you glance rearward, which tires your eyes. And the cameras get dazzled by the sun, even worse than a clean mirror does. And the camera can’t see the rear tyres for parallel parking, because it’s tucked close to the bodyside. And, and, and…
No doubt in some engineering meeting in a windowless room a few years ago, this system would have been quite the spangly idea. Then by the time they realised what a catastrophe they’d embarked on, the investment was committed.
As often happens with pointless gadgetry, it spirals out of control. To overcome the £1,250 cameras’ distance-speed perception issue, you have to add a £650 blind-spot and nextlane vehicle warning system. To overcome the absence of a view of the tyre-to-kerb gap, shell out for a separate £725 set of 360-degree cameras, which, after much dabbing at icons on the main central screen, will give the view you need.
You’re piling technologies one on top of the other, the second and third just plasters for the wounds wrought by the first. Actual mirrors were always just fine. I don’t have any hair, but if I did, I’d comb it standing before a glass, not a selfie-cam.
“MOST PEOPLE WILL CRASH BEFORE THEY’VE EVEN TURNED OUT OF THE DEALERSHIP”