The reality that I conclude from the fact that the majority of drivers on Earth get by just fine without the moronic label is the is no legitimate claim for it's existence.

In addition using panoramic mirrors for a year after 35 years of not using them it only took one drive to realize they are infinitely more useful and incredibly safer in spite of the fact they don't have because there is no need for the moronic label.

Fact: the panoramic mirror is incredibly safer than the required by ignorant law flat mirrors on the driver's side. Go government at making things worse as usual.

My claim is 1) the notice on the convex mirror is completely unnecessary and is entirely based on ignorance. (Mostly the assumption which is likely true that the average person is too ignorant to judge distance in a convex mirror) and 2) most likely some "they" decided that when convex mirrors are used they must have the label because they can't trust the average person to get how a convex mirror works and 3) the benefits of a convex mirror especially one that has a variable radius to act as a bubble mirror greatly greatly outweighs ANY advantage of 3d vision through a planar mirror, in fact with the reference line on my panoramic mirrors, I have a distance reference for a car in the lane next to me that is 10 or 100x more reliable than stereoscopic vision: : when the near headlight is inside of the reference line on my mirror of the car behind me, it is 100% of the time behind me and it's safe for me to cross into that lane, there's no such safety factors with either the near useless planar mirror on the driver's side nor the "objects appear moronic" on the passenger side.

I kinda lost track of what exactly the debate was here. Were you trying to defend there is a valuable point to have the "label for uneducated people" or that "they" are correct to have a law restricting the use of 21st century mirrors over the 18th century tech that is currently the asinine requirement? My argument is that both are bad not required and in the long run do the opposite of what the law intended (the current law makes cars less safe by eliminating the use of safer mirrors that will absolutely residuce accidents.

I understand the concept for why in 1950 "they" decided it would be a good idea to mark mirrors not planar (because they were different and new) but that concept simply should be part of driving school curriculum. It would be perfectly acceptable to me to have a non-moronic label on a convex mirror such as "c o n v e x" or "p a n o r a m I c" across the bottom so the driver that switches between cars can be reminded of the angle of view, and not "dumb down" the label to the lowest possible IQ of likely driver.

It's like the asinine shift lock interface that makes it impossible to restart a stalled E53 in the middle of an intersection while coasting. Of the 20 or 30 cars I've driven only the E53 has a non intuitive restart procedure that prevented me from a simple shift to neutral, turn key from on to start. Every other car I've driven will let me go from on to start when in neutral coasting. What level of "dumb it down" was required to eliminate the most basic and critically important function from the basic user interface of a car (restart after a stall without stopping)!?

All because a bunch of people couldn't tell the difference between the gas and brake and slammed on the gas thinking it was the brake and claiming it was the engine computer not their own mistake. Pretty amazing that once the interlock was introduced suddenly no more cars had "unintended acceleration" because drivers now must have their foot on the brake to take a car out of gear.

That is a very ok safety feature until it's not (putting me in harms way because I've just stalled in cross traffic and now must stop the car and put the brakes on before I can attempt to restart the car).

The mirror situation is very similar: in an effort to make cars safer they don't. The driving world would have done better to teach me drivers what a convex mirror is, allow cars to have convex mirrors on either side or even require panoramic mirrors on both sides. Then you could put a sticker retrofitted into old shitty mirrors at the next safety inspection.

"This mirror is shitty you can't see cars in your blind spot, good luck with that" or the politically correct version: "this mirror has a 30° blind spot".

My original mirrors had about a 40° and 20° blind spot now the have about -15 and -10° blind spot (the angle of view shows 10° to 15° overlap into what used to be a blind spot: I can now see the entire hood of an overtaking car before I can't see him in my panoramic mirrors).

Don't take offense at my strong opinions "asinine labels" you didn't invent the label best of my knowledge. It's my opinion everyone is free to have their own. Clearly "they" think it's quite important to have made it law. I think it was pretty dumb waste of time and money that could have gone to better use, because it's entirely redundant from a thinking, educated persons frame of reference: it's common knowledge that the perception of things get smaller and farther away in a convex mirror I taught myself that lesson when I was 4 or 5 looking at a reflection in my spoon while eating cereal.

If 60-70% of 7 billion people don't need the notice the rest of us also clearly don't need the notice.

If there is some study that shows otherwise that fewer crashes happen due to the warning label on mirrors and that that ALSO is a better improvement over how many MORE crashes are prevented from mirrors absent of any blind spot I would be very interested in seeing such and If that is the case the other countries should follow suit and require a life saving safety feature that costs nearly nothing to add to a car.

__________________
2011 E70 • N55 (me)
2012 E70 • N63 (wife)