<VV> Do you really want a Passenger-side Rear-view Mirror on yourCorvair?

[airvair]

Or maybe it's just because of those silly convex mirrors......

How many times have you misjudged how close something was in them? I
know I certainly have lost count. Fortunately, nothing disasterous, but
enough near misses.

-Mark

Bill Hubbell wrote:
> 
> Something that most of you probably don't know....
> 
> Since outside mirrors were not standard on cars until mid to late 1960s
> (note - they became standard equipment on Corvairs in 1966) there were no
> special provisions made for adding them.  However, on those Corvairs where
> the LH mirror WAS ordered from the factory (RPO Z01 Convenience Group with
> standard LH mirror or RPO Z13 Convenience Group with Remote LH mirror)Fisher
> Body added a reinforcing plate of steel behind the door skin where the
> mirror was to be attached.  This plate was NOT added on the RH door, and it
> also won't be there on the LH door if the car was not originally equipped
> with the mirror.  Therefore, realize that you have only the skin of the door
> to hold the screws of that mirror.
> 
> Now, as to my earlier statement about not liking the RH mirror; it turns out
> I may have an ally in science.  Here is a link http://tinyurl.com/33f7gx to
> the following abstract:
> 
> Short paper
> 
> Passenger-side rear-view mirrors: driver behavior and safety
> 
> Abstract
> 
> Passenger-side rear-view mirrors (PRMs) have been standard equipment on
> motor vehicles sold in the US for many years, although they are not required
> by the federal motor vehicle safety standards. Numerous studies documented
> both the apparent need for PRMs (to overcome visual obstructions) and their
> apparent value (by increasing visual access to the passenger-side rear). In
> addition, surveys of drivers have found a general appreciation of the
> importance of sampling visual information from the rear. Very little can be
> found, however, regarding the actual safety benefit of PRMs. A review of the
> research literature and several initial studies (driver observation and
> accident-data analysis), suggest that PRMs may not be associated with any
> substantial accident prevention, perhaps because they are not consistently
> used. Implications and research directions will be discussed.
> 
> Relevance to Industry
> 
> PRMs should have been a success story, having been carefully developed
> through research to provide important information for safe driving. The
> apparent failure of PRMs to reduce accident rates in practice illustrates a
> potential problem with designing and deploying safety features or devices
> without empirical assessment of normal user behavior.
> 
> Bill Hubbell
>