Why go to the extra trouble and expense, just to cover a blind spot? For five dollars, you can buy wide-angle mirrors that you attach in the lower corner of the side-mirror, and that covers any blind spot.

Yup its a pretty novel concept...In fact Cadillac are working on that on their concept vehicle 'Epoq'.

I believe that replacing my side-view mirrors with cameras virtually flush with the doors would substantially reduce my truck's drag and therefore improve gas mileage.

Would the reduction in drag save enough gas to justify the cost of the camera & viewer over the life of the equipment?

Some large vehicles, particularly ones that use loading docks, already have cameras. These help prevent backing accidents and incidental bumping which tend to add to the cost of maintaining the equipment. The cameras also help keep insurance costs down.

when it's ten-years old and the camera breaks, do you want to spend $500 to fix a mirror when the car is only worth $600? Other option, just drive with no mirrors? Sounds dangerous to me.

Electronics are fun, but they alway break eventually. Glass is simpler. Also, I don't believe in throw-away cars--it's more sustainable to repair and rebuild them.

I like this idea. The "mirror screens" could be on the interior triangle of the left and right sides of the car, or even a HUD. They won't be $500. They might not even be $100 for both. Small screens and cameras are almost free - look at cell phones. The fuel savings could be significant. This would improve the lines of the car as well.

ggb667, I agree that cars might be prettier without side mirrors, but even if the item only costs $100, it will still set-you back much more to repair it.

Also, I don't know about your cell-phone, but mine (2.0 megapixel) shows a price-tag past $400. I assure you, to put daylight readable screens in a car (cell-phones aren't really) you'll be in the big bucks.

The idea is pretty old, really. The oldest car I've seen with a TV camera is the 1956 Buick Centurion concept car. What a beauty, too.

http://www.carstyling.ru/cars.1956_Buick_Centurion.html

If screens get built into cars anyway for GPS navigation, the cost of a camera system would only be the cameras. And webcams are pretty cheap: only $50 or less, aren't they? If these things cut accidents, insurers might cut their rates by some per4centage. I hope some high-end car-maker tests the waters.

A pretty good idea. But if you drive at night time, you'd probably want to make sure that they work at night time too.

I had the same idea.

Yes, you could simply stay with glass, which will always be cheaper and easier, etc. This is great for a low end car. (If we always went with the cheapest option, we'd have no innovation or luxury vehicles).

I see this for mid-priced sedans and SUVs to high end luxury vehicles and trucks.

I envision the system to be as simple as camera mounted in replace of mirrors, and displays inside near the console in front of the driver. Higher end systems would employ cameras that have night vision capability. An option to add when equiped with this type of system, would be security for your vehicle. Add a motion sensor, and now the vehicle can take video surveillance to help catch thieves/vandals.

Benefits of cameras versus mirrors are:Requires less head motion to view the vehicle surroundings, keeping the eyes more focused on the road ahead.Eliminate blind spots and increase visibility of road. The display inside close to the driver can be easier to see then the mirror.Night vision is possible.Theft deterrent is possible.Improved aerodynamics. Mirrors are a big drag, especially on trucks and SUVs which have rather large mirrors.