R. Andrew Hicks, a Drexel University math professor, has invented a driver’s side mirror that eliminates the dangerous blind spot that traditional mirrors have. But federal regulations are preventing car manufacturers from using his potentially life-saving invention.
The improved mirrors give a 45-degree field of view, compared to 15 to 17 degrees for traditional flat mirrors. And they do it without giving the distorted fish-eye view that plagues curved mirrors. Prof. Hicks told the website Phys.org how it works:
“Imagine that the mirror’s surface is made of many smaller mirrors turned to different angles, like a disco ball,” Hicks said. “The algorithm is a set of calculations to manipulate the direction of each face of the metaphorical disco ball so that each ray of light bouncing off the mirror shows the driver a wide, but not-too-distorted, picture of the scene behind him.”
Pretty ingenious, frankly. And unlike many ivory tower projects, this could save lives. The trouble is that federal regulations require side mirrors to be flat. The rule made sense because, until now, curved wide-view mirrors give such a distorted view that their safety benefits are dubious at best.
Prof. Hicks’ mirrors are curved, which is why they violate federal rules for standard equipment. Of course, the curves are non-uniform with tens of thousands of inflection points, which is why they give triple the field of view with distortion comparable to flat mirrors. Regulations would do better to focus on distortion or field of view than on whether or not a mirror is curved.
Regulators should modernize mirror regulations post-haste so that car manufacturers can make Prof. Hicks’ mirrors standard equipment. As it is now, drivers could buy and install the mirrors themselves. But millions more people would benefit if car manufacturers were able to make them standard equipment.
Or, better yet, regulators could get out of the way altogether so that people like Prof. Hicks can save lives without having to say, “Sir, may I?”
You can read Prof. Hicks’ paper in which he explains his invention here.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
DriveInnovation.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 
Well I supposed I should have expected a stereotypical ‘free range capitalism’ response to such news. While Hicks’ invention is promising, there are valid reasons for the regulations that supposedly impede his progress. Sadly, OpenMarket appears to place more value on the enterprise and profit potential of such an invention while doing a ‘song and dance’ about how many lives it will save. Yet another chorus of ‘a high tide floats all boats’ nonsense.
Phil – You have no evidence when you say “Open Markets appears to place more value on the enterprise and profit potential of such an invention…” In fact the available evidence contradicts your claim. The first paragraph talks about eliminating danger and saving lives. No mention of profit or enterprise. The blog complains several times about government regulations. Discovering errors is how civilization goes forward. If the government regulations are in error then bloggers should tell us how and why the regulations are wrong. That is common sense. It is not “stereotypical free range capitalism”. I see you did not tell us the “valid reasons” for the out-of-date regulations. Cat got your tongue? Can’t remember the valid reasons just now? I think you saw red when you read criticism of the government. You stopped thinking and started getting angry with the people who dare to criticise the wonderful government.
Another example of how government regulation causes harm instead of good.
Phil, as someone who actually knows a little bit about NHTSA regulations, what you say is complete nonsense. These mirrors are completely legal in the aftermarket (you install them after you purchase the car), but cannot be installed by an OEM (the company that made your car). But did you actually read the article or just immediately assume We’re From The Government, And We’re Here To Help?
The regulation in question is at 49 CFR § 571.111 (which is known as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111 or “the mirror rule”), and it does not account for this real-world contradiction of safety in that it requires that any OEM-installed driver’s side external rearview mirror must be a “mirror of unit magnification,” which is regulator-speak for “flat.” No convexity or concavity allowed, ever, even when it’s better and far safer! On passenger side external rearview mirrors, they can have a curvature but are required to have an “objects in mirror…” label, which would be completely false in this case. Get it? Get why it’s stupid now?
“The rule made sense, until now.” In other words, it never made any sense.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }