Adaptive headlights approved for the US!

[eggsalad]

And a few other useful bits, too!

SEC. 24212. HEADLAMPS.
(a) Definitions. — In this section:
(1) Adaptive driving beam headlamp. — The term "adaptive driving beam headlamp'' means a headlamp (as defined in Standard 108) that meets the performance requirements specified in SAE International Standard J3069, published on June 30, 2016.
(2) Standard 108. — The term "Standard 108'' means Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108, contained in section 571.108 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act).

(b) Rulemaking. — Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule amending Standard 108 —
(1) to include performance-based standards for vehicle headlamp systems —
(A) to ensure that headlights are correctly aimed on the road; and
(B) requiring those systems to be tested on-vehicle to account for headlight height and lighting performance; and
(2) to allow for the use on vehicles of adaptive driving beam headlamp systems.

 

[jonc2]

I'm all for technology and safety but what will this do to a price of a vehicle?

 

[John_Galt]

I'm all for technology and safety but what will this do to a price of a vehicle?

^^^^^

Insurance companies: our clients are having too many wrecks. We should demand legislation to require additional mandatory safety features to insulate the drivers from the task of driving the vehicle.

Also the insurance companies: wtf? Why are the average price of repairs - and - the number of accidents increasing?

Cool to see adaptive headlamp systems becoming legal. I recall reading that some high end Audis have the entire system installed, but not enabled in US market vehicles. Perhaps its a similar story with higher end BMW and mercedes vehicles? Could do without some of the other driver monitoring requirements, for a few reasons.

 

[jonc2]

^^^^^

Insurance companies: our clients are having too many wrecks. We should demand legislation to require additional mandatory safety features to insulate the drivers from the task of driving the vehicle.

Also the insurance companies: wtf? Why are the average price of repairs - and - the number of accidents increasing?

Cool to see adaptive headlamp systems becoming legal. I recall reading that some high end Audis have the entire system installed, but not enabled in US market vehicles. Perhaps its a similar story with higher end BMW and mercedes vehicles? Could do without some of the other driver monitoring requirements, for a few reasons.

Thank you!

 

[Alaric Darconville]

I'm all for technology and safety but what will this do to a price of a vehicle?

It will allow for, but not *require*, ADB (Adaptive Driving Beam, which is not the same as "adaptive headlights", which are already legal here).

It's not necessarily going to start popping up on Corollas and Civics and Accents, it'll first show up on Avalons, Acuras, and Sonatas. And when they do, they'll be optional for some time until we get a real requirement.

And we'll need a hard date requirement for new vehicles to have real ADB, so that way the vehicles that don't have it will age off the road and there won't be a disparity in new vehicles. It'll be a lot safer for everyone if everyone has it, and the economy of scale will make it cheaper for all of us.

Could do without some of the other driver monitoring requirements, for a few reasons.

I could do without some all of the accidents that occur because drivers are distracted, inattentive, sleepy, or intoxicated.

 

[-Virgil-]

Hold your horses, don't pop any champagne corks yet.

First of all, "adaptive headlights" have been legal here for years. What's under discussion right now (legal in Europe/rest of world for ten years, legal in Canada since 2019, still not legal in the USA) is adaptive driving beam headlamps, which aren't the same as "adaptive headlights".

Second, no, ADB has not been "approved for the US". That's not an accurate headline or accurate understanding of what has happened. The infrastructure bill (now law) requires NHTSA to amend FMVSS 108 within two years to allow ADB as per SAE J3069. That's nice if it ever actually happens (let alone within the two years), but if you'll look at this and this and this, you'll see the odds and track-record are against it.

Given all of that, this stack of things NHTSA is directed to do within two years is a lot like those "Finish this 128-ounce steak within 90 minutes and it's FREE and we'll put your picture on the wall!" things at certain kinds of restaurants: highly unlikely anyone ever actually finishes it (and lives).

Sorry to piѕѕ on the parade, but we're still a long, dark, cold, wet uphill way from ADB being legal in the USA.

 

[-Virgil-]

Insurance companies: our clients are having too many wrecks. We should demand legislation to require additional mandatory safety features to insulate the drivers from the task of driving the vehicle.

Also the insurance companies: wtf? Why are the average price of repairs - and - the number of accidents increasing?

Well...no. There is no doublethink of this kind going on, except in the fine print of conspiracy theories. Everyone is onboard with ADB. The automakers (they want it optional so they can monetize it to the max). The lighting suppliers (they want it mandatory because more system = more money). The consumer organizations and the safety researchers, no matter whether or not they're affiliated with the insurance industry (mandatory because it gives a giant safety increase versus conventional headlamps). The regulators

Could do without some of the other driver monitoring requirements, for a few reasons.

Drivers need to be monitored, that much is obvious, because we (human beings) do a terrible job of maintaining the appropriate, necessary level of vigilance and attention while driving. But you know the old saying about how the road to hell is paved? It could have been written for this exact situation. I'd love to be wrong, but I predict that the kinds of tattlers and lockouts we're talking about here (can't use your car if it decides you've been drinking, etc) are going to make the 1974 seatbelt interlock debacle look positively terrific in comparison.

 

[pnwoutdoors]

Second, no, ADB has not been "approved for the US". That's not an accurate headline or accurate understanding of what has happened. The infrastructure bill (now law) requires NHTSA to amend FMVSS 108 within two years to allow ADB as per SAE J3069. That's nice if it ever actually happens ...

^ This.

Again, it'll depend on what actually gets put into the rule change. I, for one, certainly hope that the well-received, safe ADB type displays that Europe has is the sort of thing that is finally tolerated, here in the U.S. Though, as some have pointed out, whether that actually means it'll be sooner rather than later before useful light products actually make it to market (as after-market or installed via OEM), that's a whole other question. The wheels of bureaucracy, and all.

We'll see.

 

[-Virgil-]

Well, let's flash-forward two years and assume NHTSA complies with this requirement in a complete, timely way (ow, my ribs, ow). The result would be a mixed bag: ADB as per SAE J3069 is definitely better than the clueless mess of a system NHTSA proposed...but still not as good as ADB as per the UN Regulations.

I will be real curious to see how/if NHTSA makes any effort towards some of those other, non-ADB requirements. Like the one that requires them to "ensure that headlights are correctly aimed on the road". Maintenance of vehicles on the road has never been a part of NHTSA's jurisdiction. It's always been state/commonwealth/territorial jurisdiction (which most of those entities don't bother with, or at least not meaningfully).

 

[John_Galt]

Well...no. There is no doublethink of this kind going on, except in the fine print of conspiracy theories. Everyone is onboard with ADB. The automakers (they want it optional so they can monetize it to the max). The lighting suppliers (they want it mandatory because more system = more money). The consumer organizations and the safety researchers, no matter whether or not they're affiliated with the insurance industry (mandatory because it gives a giant safety increase versus conventional headlamps). The regulators



Drivers need to be monitored, that much is obvious, because we (human beings) do a terrible job of maintaining the appropriate, necessary level of vigilance and attention while driving. But you know the old saying about how the road to hell is paved? It could have been written for this exact situation. I'd love to be wrong, but I predict that the kinds of tattlers and lockouts we're talking about here (can't use your car if it decides you've been drinking, etc) are going to make the 1974 seatbelt interlock debacle look positively terrific in comparison.

I've made my stance known about self driving cars before, that I don't think it's the 'next big thing' that is promised. There are far too many compromises for it to be put into practice.

In reference to the "need" to monitor drivers, I again say, "No. No that's not something that needs done." I will hold to anecdote and personal experience, flawed and limited as it is, that the more assistive technologies for the driver, the less engaged the average driver is, and the more annoyed and harassed (even impaired?) the attentive/conscientious/skilled driver is. Life is not without consequence for poor decision making, and poor decision making at 80mph should result in severe consequences. Creating a system of crutches just allows poor drivers to do more driving. Ultimately it is the lowest hurdle to actually sharing the road that should be the first thing looked at. It is a laughable "test" of the barest knowledge and skill that allows morons and half wits to cruise at 70 with their face buried in their phone. The rest of us should not be expected to bear significant burdens, both in terms of expense and, much more importantly the invasion of personal space and further encroachment of rights when simply raising that lowest bar is such low hanging fruit.

But then, increasing the difficulty to pass a basic test could certainly attract outcries from social groups about the potential racial/social impacts being *the* supposed reason for the change. And it also, as you rightly point out, doesn't create a mandatory market.

Edit- also wanted to add, because I had forgotten, that I appreciate the clarification about what this will really result in.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

Life is not without consequence for poor decision making, and poor decision making at 80mph should result in severe consequences.

It would be nice if poor decision-making at 80mph (or any speed) would result in severe (or any) consequences to ONLY the maker of the poor decision, but that is never the case. Often, other people who did not make the decision are impacted, whether it's a passenger in the same vehicle, the driver or passenger in another, a pedestrian, equestrian, or bicyclist; or even a person at home who must learn their family member or friend pulled a stupid stunt on the highway, or got behind the wheel drunk or overly tired, and won't be coming home.

The first responders are affected. The people who investigate the incident are affected. The people at the hospital are affected. There's the cleanup of the roadway after the mess. Potential repairs to infrastructure like guard rails or bridge abutments. There're the cars that need to be repaired or scrapped after the incident.

It's weird that with the same breath you decry driver monitoring you also complain that drivers are allowed to "cruise at 70 with their face buried in their phone". You realize there is a huge problem with inattentive driving, but to think that it's at all possible to truly educate and train every driver to this skill level you believe they should have is unrealistic. Also, you talk about the "severe consequences" that should go in hand with poor decisions, and admit again that their decisions could impact YOU or people you care about (because if they didn't you really wouldn't care if they've got their face buried in their phone).

Imagine if in the early days of cars, someone stood up and said that we don't NEED stop lamps or even to make hand signals for turns and stops, because if the other drivers had the requisite skill level, they'd notice the car in front of them slowing down or making a turn. Given the attitudes I see from car owners about their tinted tail lamps (and the comments they make on Facebook defending their own or others' tinted tail lamps), this probably actually has happened.

Imagine if in the early days of cars, someone stood up and said they didn't need a horn-- people could just yell at the kid running across the road. Imagine if someone said we shouldn't even HAVE headlamps because if they can't see well enough to drive in the moonlight, well, they should get a horse.

People have resisted antilock brakes ("they can just pump the brakes like Dad taught me, ABS is a crutch"). They've resisted emission controls ("pollution is only bad in Riverside, CA"1​). They've resisted seatbelts ("tHeY crAmP mY sTYlE" or "i CoULd GeT tRApPed"). They've resisted motorcycle helmets ("muH FrEedOmS").

We need to stop looking at safety improvements as "crutches". We need to stop looking at driver monitoring systems as "intrusion" or a "loss of freedom". Preventable loss of life is a loss of freedom.

This is not to say we need a breathalyzer installed on every new car and facial tracking on every new car, but there surely can be systems implemented that help warn a driver and the passengers that something's Not Right(TM) with the driver. Lane departure warning systems and possibly lane marking tracking systems could help to some extent (where the road markings are clear and visible to the systems). A system that detects if you've hit the rumble strips too many times in the past X seconds (as if the rumble strips themselves aren't already a warning to the driver) and alerts the vehicle occupants could probably easily be implemented (and would have a freakout on washboard roads).



1​And air quality in Riverside, CA has improved *greatly* since we started requiring effective emission controls on new cars. It probably wouldn't have happened without government mandates.

 

[idleprocess]

We need to stop looking at safety improvements as "crutches". We need to stop looking at driver monitoring systems as "intrusion" or a "loss of freedom". Preventable loss of life is [not] a loss of freedom.

Reminded of a fellow at the local makerspace - a veteran woodworker - who hated the sawstop table saw. Would rant about nanny-state this and the weak-minded and -willed who would suffer such a thing. Would always use the old-school Delta that had no such safety device.

Then one day he severed most of a thumb using the Delta in the blink of an eye. I don't know if he defends the moral superiority of bad outcomes arrived at via absolute freedom of action with as much passion these days.

To be fair, the sawstop system is imperfect. For every user that nearly nicked themselves on the sawstop, it's tripped at least five times due to moisture in the wood or other means of conduction that tripped the safety. This does mean installing another ~$60 safety cartridge and having the retracted blade repaired for $20 - $30. But even with >1,000 largely amateur users this seems to only be an every-other-month issue.

 

[John_Galt]

[Edited by moderator to remove personal attack -- please obey the rules of this forum]The only way to prevent 100% of vehicle related deaths is to completely ban all types of vehicles. Anything less is a compromise where you choose to sacrifice peoples health and lives for your own convenience. My stance is that we have an acceptable level of risk:lack-of-external-control ratio currently.

And I will leave it at that.

 

[-Virgil-]

In reference to the "need" to monitor drivers, I again say, "No. No that's not something that needs done."

Well, yes, it really is, by objective measure. Clearly you don't want drivers monitored, but that's not the same thing. Hell, I don't like the idea, either, but the fact is that objectively we humans do a pisѕ-poor job of staying alert and controlling our vehicles. We can bang your fist on the table and holler about personal responsibility and consequences for stupidity til the cows come home, and it won't change the fact that people -- even careful, responsible people who don't own celphones -- make mistakes, because we are human. When technology makes it possible to reduce the likelihood of a mistake and the severity of consequences for a mistake, the grownup thing to do is to implement that technology, not babble about personal responsibility. We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it were (or think it should be).

My stance is that we have an acceptable level of risk:lack-of-external-control ratio currently.

We don't, though. Too many people still get killed or maimed in traffic. Advancing technology increasingly offers the possibility to feasibly address that. A society that puts mature adults in charge of these kinds of questions acts on this set of realities, even though some people might cry and whine about it, perhaps because they haven't (yet) been personally affected by the excessive death and dismemberment rate.

 

[John_Galt]

You assume quite a lot with that last sentence, Virgil.

Mature adults have spent the last century frittering away individual freedoms for a pittance in social support, and a whole host of other things. Across the world, not just here in the US.

 

[-Virgil-]

Maybe or maybe not, but either way, the market overwhelmingly rejects your view that cars are safe enough. That doesn't imply a right/wrong judgment, it just means we're headed in the direction of safer and safer cars because that's what most people want, ergo that's where the money is, ergo that's what the industry makes. We're here to discuss lighting and related topics; hell-in-a-handbasket rants about individual freedoms and such are better kept for Facebook or Parler or AM radio or...other places that aren't here.

 

[RUSH FAN]

My BMW has the adaptive headlights.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

My BMW has the adaptive headlights.

Adaptive headlamps are one thing, but the topic here is the "adaptive driving beam" (ADB), which is a whole 'nother thing entirely. ADB is, essentially, an always-on high beam that selectively masks portions of the beam so as to not blind other drivers (whether oncoming or preceding). The "adaptive" systems we see here are like the LS430's AFS (Adaptive Front-Lighting System) wherein the low beams swivel in the direction the steering wheel is turned.

 

[PhotonWrangler]

I can see the argument that increased automation in cars can lead to careless and inattentive driving. Look at all the wacky and reckless behaviors we've seen in the news from Tesla drivers who thought their "autonomous" cars didn't require any driver input. Some of them died in gruesome ways by not paying attention to the road.

However I don't see ADB falling into this category at all. It's not adding any autonomy as far as I can tell; it's just allowing you to see potential road hazards better while protecting the vision of oncoming drivers so they can do the same. I don't think that ADB would make me less attentive to the road. It might make me more attentive. YMMV of course.

 

[idleprocess]

I can see the argument that increased automation in cars can lead to careless and inattentive driving. Look at all the wacky and reckless behaviors we've seen in the news from Tesla drivers who thought their "autonomous" cars didn't require any driver input.

This is nothing new.

Twenty some odd years ago I was talking with someone that was working three (mostly) full time jobs at once. They described a situation they had been in where they were on their third day without sleep driving between jobs and were so exhausted that they almost convinced themselves that it was OK to sleep on the straightaways so long as they woke up in time for the turns.

We hear about Tesla's automation failing because it's novel. And because their CEO spends way too much time on Twitter making improbable claims. Otherwise, moral hazard has been a factor in automobiles since they first appeared. Plenty of other more mundane driver faults occur due to distraction that pass largely unnoticed.