• Does stereo-vision really provide much value-add, compared to a single-integrated-view? Particularly since this adds the very-user-unfriendly bit that the user has to wear fuckin' goggles to use the thing.
• Is it possible to use clever static positioning on the car (e.g. as far back as possible) to cover the side-view sufficiently?
• Failing that, is it possible to include an inexpensive head tracker and single-axis motors atop each stalk to be able to rotate the cameras? (though this entails a much larger(ie heavier) camera dome to prevent buffeting)
• Although it's true that only one camera could be used if we went with the integrated-view method, which would allow us to greatly reduce costs (one stalk instead of two), it's also true that this would VASTLY reduce the ability to see in between lanes. So the one-stalk variant should be seen as an optional economy SKU only, not as the main solution.

TODO: How will the rear view be handled? The same structural support would nearly as easily support two back-to-back cameras as it would one forward-facing camera (and the camera-dome aerodynamics would be mostly unaffected), so it probably makes sense to include that. However, from an end-user standpoint, what method would they use to select between the two views? A momentary pushbutton? Or the rear-view would always be displayed as a smaller image beside the main image, and they could just shift their eyes to see it?

TODO: Is vibration (due to stalk flexing) going to be a problem? EVERY animal that has eyestalks has to deal with this, and in many cases, they're able to intentionally move their eyestalks side-to-side, so maybe the visual cortex can just adapt? Is the annoyance level low, medium, or high? (if some of the customers are extremely high-end (Lamborghinis), they might not tolerate fairly-unpolished issues like this)

TODO: Have my sister review the side- and rear-view bits more thoroughly, she has very strong ideas about the necessity of being able to see 360° around you while driving insanely on expressways.

Legal

TODO: Are there any legal rules that prevent a driver from wearing head-mounted displays over their eyes, even if the display is independently/officially certified as fail-safe?

Structural

TODO: (see also "financial risk" below) Given that our target customer is "insane Lamborghini and Corvette drivers", it's unlikely that they'll heed silly warnings like "product not rated at speeds over 100mph". So, given that the contraption will be exposed to a huge amount of wind, is it possible to ensure it'll remain secure at MAXIMUM possible vehicle speeds? What is a more realistic maximum-speed that it could experience? (motorcycles do 300km/h, the Bugatti Veyron does 408km/h / 253mph)

TODO: (see also "financial risk" below) Is there any way to ensure that the stalks won't collapse on contact with low overpasses? What is a reasonable low-overpass-height to design for? (note that, unlike the "maximum rated speed" issue above, "insane sportscar drivers" don't necessarily have any inherent urge to ignore low-clearance product warnings)

TODO: We don't have to pin all the details down now, but it might be worth thinking about how the stalk itself is built. 1) we should drastically minimize weight on the top half of the stalk to reduce flexing, 2) on the bottom half of the stalk, the focus is on having a metal tube that the wire runs completely inside, to ward off anyone who might be tempted to vandalize the unit. (to minimize weight, the part of the stalk that's above human-standing-height will probably have the wire running outside the metal, albeit still wrapped in something that's rated to withstand environmental conditions)

Political (long view)

Out-of-the-box vehicle innovations sometimes become officially proscribed once it's clear to politicians that most voters strongly dislike it. (e.g. anti-bicycle and anti-motorcycle views sometimes border on this, whistle tips and pocketbikes are definitely in this category, though for perhaps common-sense and valid reasons). Eyestalks are particularly vulnerable since they're so visible, and because it could be argued they're solely useful in situations where one intends to drive extremely dangerously.

(though note that, like the anti-motorcycle-helmet lobby, sometimes having rich and well-connected people on your side (Lamborghini drivers in this product's case) can tip the scales in your favor)

OH! Of course! Crazy mobile hams hang huge antennas off their rear bumper! That way, if it collapses, it collapses AWAY from your car. Granted, this still allows for guy-wire damage, and damage to trailing vehicles, so it's not a bullet-proof solution. But it's a start!
Are there any super-strong plastic guy-wires we could use? This could minimize damage, AND minimize the visual impact.

Further, if you clearly state on the packaging that "product rated for 100mph max", then if the thing collapses and only damages someone else's car, then the third party is likely to sue the original driver, not the manufacturer, since it's the driver who's acting negligently. (even though the original legal argument that "by selling a product that encourages people to drive even crazier than they already were, you can hardly expect them to stay within the stated engineered speed limits, so the manufacturer is willfully ignorant here, and thus liable" still applies. However, in the third-party situation, at least they have a choice about which party to sue, so even if it comes down to "distracted into suing someone else", it still results in the expected value of financial risk being substantively reduced. Though since it's still far above a "non-trivial risk", manufacturers may still be unwilling to make this product.