[sudanmohit]

Voted yes...

There's no way to vote as no.

People are worried about cost. Last year an XUV 500 in my family got passenger side orvm replaced (it broke as driver was distracted by a puppy behind the car and couldn't see the mirror touching the gate while moving in reverse). It costed somewhere near 16k.

That's almost nearing an entry-level DSLR. How can be a digital camera costlier. Hell my humble Vista side mirror costed me 5.5k when two bikers decided to do a race in the colony roads and my parked vista tried to stop them i doubt that cost can be a factor in favour of mirrors.

Then there's reduction in width (More people can relate to this i know).

Make way technology is coming

[MisterG]

I would vote no, if I could. But don't have sufficient privileges. I prefer conventional rear view mirrors for their reliability, ease of maintenance, adjustment and of course, familiarity. At the same time, I am not against the digital enhancements. It is a very good additional driving aid and will definitely be a good to have feature alongside conventional mirrors. With the right adjustments, they can prove valuable while driving through or getting out of tough spots, giving the driver an all round view.

[John P Daniel]

Voted no. As good as it may be, I personally feel something as critical as an ORVM must be less reliant on electronics. Normal ORVMs have evolved so much that there's not much to be done apart from reducing its size. This cannot be done as it hinders visual clarity. It's foldable, heated, clear enough in rains and also aerodynamic.

The same cannot be said for an electric camera. As good as it may be in the daylight, it still has noisy image in low light, has light flaring issues due to optics, prone to scratches, images can be distorted in rains/snow, and most of all, has time delay. It is also a part that most probably relies on the Body Control Module which adds another point of failure. Even then, the stalk like designs without a mirror on it can seem like a body with tiny ears.

I believe electronics should aid driver and not add complexity. If it's not broken, why fix it?

[KnightRider77]

Voted yes. Here's why FWIW:

Firstly, why do we need side mirrors? Ostensibly to see traffic or objects on the side of the cars.

Currently, we have to look significantly to the left (or right depending on driver seating) which IMO leaves a significant "time of attack" for something else coming from the opposite direction. The less your head/eyes have to travel, the better. So, a centrally positioned (relative to driver) view is a lot safer, surely? Most cars already come with driver dash, so why not use it? It's already used for reverse parking and whatnots.

The Lexus implementation is nuts though. We don't need *another* screen to manage! Just re-use the digital console already provided for driving aid. Don't the Korean cars already have side views that come up when you turn on the indicators? All you need to do is enable the very same views at the press of a switch (not turn indicators). Problem solved.

Look, as we hurtle into the future, cars are going to get digitally sophisticated. More cameras, LIDARs, etc to keep us all safe and cocooned before AI fully takes over the driving experience and eventually the world. It's inevitable. There is no point trying to make feeble excuses to slow it down.

The robot overlords are coming.

Resistance is futile!

[svsantosh]

Originally Posted by SnakemanJohny

But my Maruti Gypsy does not come with a left ORVM...

I would love to do this on my car and only difference is keep the Screen on the far end of the Dash board. We all so used to watch the "tennis match" from left-right volleys' that ones brain might not spot the center of the dash in an instant. Also that way your neck remembers to go L-R-L-R in any and all cars you may come across.

[ChethuGowda]

Though these electronic ORVMs are the solution for many known problems/limitations with the conventional ORVMs. There is something called FuSa(Functional Safety) standards, which require such functional features or gadgets which involve fatal impacts to be ASIL compliant.

When the vehicle is in high speed(even at low speed can cause considerable damages), the framerate and the resolution of the display plays key role in understanding what is going on around your car.

Imagine, the display getting crashed, not the physical one, but the software crash or the frozen frame where the display does not get updated and driver is continued to be deceived until he/she realize the issue or something wrong happens.

So, though these gadgets/features resolve many real world issues, they also require to be ASIL compliant and extremely tested & approved.

[Mafia]

Voted No.

There come a point in technology adoption that starts making one uncomfortable.

OVRM's work well. If they are not broken they work. No lag / hanging/ temporarily blinded by sudden light in the night or what ever.

I cannot say the same for any digital tech. There are so many parameters to the digital mirrors. The night time performance is the most questionable in low-light conditions.