Adaptive headlights approved for the US!

[John_Galt]

It isn't just Tesla drivers. I have a long-time friend who finds the nifty safety features of his CRV particularly useful for helping him to all but not have to drive on the highway. And this is what my earlier point was- these systems become a crutch that is not enhancing the drivers attention, or aiding in their safe decision making when driving. It is effectively replacing certain portions of their responsibility, not by design, but by their abuse of such systems. His attention at highway speeds is not enhanced by the lane centering system or adaptive cruise control, he uses those systems to cruise while watching movies to his phone suction cupped to the windshield. His major complaints about these systems, so far, are that they often don't work very well on broad turns along the roads he drives, where they might panic brake because they see vehicles in other lanes and respond to those, despite them not being at risk of being hit.

There is no way that he is an example of a safer driver on the road than someone driving a completely safety-monitor free vehicle, who actually sits and accomplishes the tasks associated with driving their vehicle.

The sole reason I whinge on about the invasion of privacy and further effective loss of rights, is because the people who are nominally charged with writing these regulations within the limits of Constitutionality have clearly stopped paying any attention to these documents.

[Rule violation removed by moderator—you know better, John.] As I said, typical.

 

[-Virgil-]

We hear about Tesla's automation failing because it's novel

...more because Elon Musk's mouth/keyboard keeps writing checks his cars can't even come close to cashing, and he keeps flipping the bird to safety regulators around the world, and people are dying as a result.

 

[-Virgil-]

It isn't just Tesla drivers. I have a long-time friend who finds the nifty safety features of his CRV particularly useful for helping him to all but not have to drive on the highway. And this is what my earlier point was- these systems become a crutch that is not enhancing the drivers attention, or aiding in their safe decision making when driving. It is effectively replacing certain portions of their responsibility, not by design, but by their abuse of such systems. His attention at highway speeds is not enhanced by the lane centering system or adaptive cruise control, he uses those systems to cruise while watching movies to his phone suction cupped to the windshield. His major complaints about these systems, so far, are that they often don't work very well on broad turns along the roads he drives, where they might panic brake because they see vehicles in other lanes and respond to those, despite them not being at risk of being hit.

There is no way that he is an example of a safer driver on the road than someone driving a completely safety-monitor free vehicle, who actually sits and accomplishes the tasks associated with driving their vehicle.

The sole reason I whinge on about the invasion of privacy and further effective loss of rights, is because the people who are nominally charged with writing these regulations within the limits of Constitutionality have clearly stopped paying any attention to these documents.

And this has...what to do with headlamps, adaptive or otherwise?

 

[turbodog]

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.

I sold my table saw and bought a sawstop after getting a wake up call a couple years ago. Don't mind it one bit either.

It's no _replacement_ for awareness and good sense, but it's a very nice _compliment_ to them.

 

[turbodog]

Adaptive headlamps are one thing, but the topic here is the "adaptive driving beam" (ADB), which is a whole 'nother thing entirely. Yes, Lexus calls the swiveling low beams on the LS430 "ADB" but it's not "ADB". 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).

So how is this better? If the filament/emitter dies... now you have no light on that side?

 

[-Virgil-]

So how is this better?

ADB gives about 100 extra feet of seeing distance compared to low beam, but without extra glare. That is a huge safety advantage; low beams (even very good ones, properly aimed) do not give adequate seeing distance.

If the filament/emitter dies... now you have no light on that side?

Filaments aren't involved in ADB; multiple LEDs are.

I can't make head or tail of your question here. Cars are packed with parts that can fail, but usually don't. Every headlamp ever made gives no light if it fails; this is not some new safety threat.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

So how is this better?

Like -Virgil- points out-- about 100 extra feet of seeing distance. At 70mph, that's about 1 extra second of seeing distance than before.

If the filament/emitter dies... now you have no light on that side?

Filament? This is done with arrays of LEDs on each side. Besides, we've driven for YEARS with the problem that if a bulb fails we lose the high or low beam function on that side (and rarely, but potentially, both-- if it's a dual-filament bulb and fails in a particular way).

 

[turbodog]

After having both low & high fail on both sides of my moving truck once... that sort of leaves an impression on someone.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

After having both low & high fail on both sides of my moving truck once... that sort of leaves an impression on someone.

Another reason just because you've got great headlamps doesn't mean you should be driving as fast at night as you would in the day. And remember that a motorcyclist typically is already at a "half the performance of an automotive headlighting system" disadvantage and can have that one headlamp fail entirely (which can be fairly likely given motorcycle headlamps are generally always on, and the amount of jolts and vibration the lamps take).

But we can't sit there paralyzed thinking our headlamps are going to fail every time we drive. Nor can we play Devil's Advocate all the time trying to conjure these "what if" situations. This reads like argument for the sake of argument.

 

[ameli0rate]

poor decision making at 80mph should result in severe consequences

Hmm. My comments were included in the quote.. weird. (ok, looks like I got it now)

I've jokingly said that all cars should have a 6" spike mounted to the steering wheel. That might urge drivers to exercise some caution.

I do like safety features, but ideally I prefer a great mass-transit system where far fewer people NEED to drive when they had a few drinks, went to a party or need to get home from the airport.

Hop on a train, get on the subway, take the bus. That eliminates traffic, makes it easier to drive for those who HAVE to, etc. etc.

Of course, maybe that means there are more deer on the roads for the remaining drivers as not as many get clipped and taken out of circulation.

 

[JustAnOldFashionedLEDGuy]

In 20 years or less, potentially much less for some, we won't be driving our own cars. We are not very good at it. Lights will matter far less and may perform a different function.

 

[Hamilton Felix]

I was recently reading a Koito site. "Smart" adaptive lighting that puts more light where needed, essentially everywhere but on the oncoming vehicle(s) sounds wonderful. It seems almost magical that a lighting system could keep a rapidly approaching vehicle free of glare while lighting all around it. But Arthur C. Clarke reminded us that "a sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic." 😉

i can't help wondering if we'll reach a point where "aiming" is replaced by "programming."

Also, I wonder about the consequences of malfunction or incorrect adjustment in such a system, perhaps protecting the area 20 feet to the right of the approaching vehicle from glare instead of said vehicle. Oh well, living on a seasonal scenic highway means I'm used to meeting vehicles with so much weight in back that their low beams are where high should be, and their high beams are "monkey chasers," disturbing animals in the tree tops while leaving a black hole on the highway ahead.🙄

 

[Alaric Darconville]

Also, I wonder about the consequences of malfunction or incorrect adjustment in such a system, perhaps protecting the area 20 feet to the right of the approaching vehicle from glare instead of said vehicle.

We can "what if" ourselves to death-- my own method for dealing with a malfunction (for example, in the camera/tracking itself) would be to revert the controls to a standard high/low function with a dashboard light indicating the malfunction and alerting the driver to use the headlamps in the "traditional" manner.

 

[idleprocess]

We can "what if" ourselves to death-- my own method for dealing with a malfunction (for example, in the camera/tracking itself) would be to revert the controls to a standard high/low function with a dashboard light indicating the malfunction and alerting the driver to use the headlamps in the "traditional" manner.

One of the most common malfunctions for such a system is apt to be a dirty camera lens - easily remedied. Could get fancy, integrate with the rearview display, and use the machine vision software to highlight the dirty areas onscreen. Or basic and disable adaptive headlights with a nagging indicator until remedied.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

One of the most common malfunctions for such a system is apt to be a dirty camera lens - easily remedied. Could get fancy, integrate with the rearview display, and use the machine vision software to highlight the dirty areas onscreen.

Instead of lighting up an additional screen in the car when the driver least needs extra light in their face, maybe the camera lens could be self-cleaning.

 

[idleprocess]

Instead of lighting up an additional screen in the car when the driver least needs extra light in their face, maybe the camera lens could be self-cleaning.

I'm sure that's SOP for these things, however there will be occasional situations requiring user intervention such as consumables running out.

 

[jtr1962]

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

Not even close. 35K annual deaths and several million injuries is in no way remotely acceptable. Imagine if air or train travel were this deadly. The NTSB would shut it down immediately until a way could be found to make it much safer.

Also keep in the mind the "monitoring" systems you decry have been incorporated into modern aircraft flown by highly trained pilots. Putting similar systems in automobiles makes them safer. All these systems do is reject nonsensical inputs which always have bad outcomes. For example, if you start drifting off the road the system won't let you leave the road and crash, or in city driving leave the road and hit people on the sidewalk. What's wrong with that? Or they won't let you follow at less than a safe distance. In urban areas they shouldn't allow you to exceed the posted speed limit or accelerate at more than gentle rates (i.e. no more "stop light grand prix"). Basically, they won't kick in if the vehicle is being operated safely and competently. They exist for those moments where you might have a lapse of attention, or just want to drive recklessly. The end result of this is saving lots of lives until fully automated driving is ready for prime time.

 

[jtr1962]

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.

Great post. To all those decrying government mandates I think if left to their own devices automakers wouldn't even have installed brakes, never mind any of the other stuff we take for granted now.

 

[idleprocess]

In urban areas they shouldn't allow you to exceed the posted speed limit or accelerate at more than gentle rates (i.e. no more "stop light grand prix").

Governed speeds are one of the reasons it takes trucks several minutes to pass one another on the highway. Traffic would also flow considerably less efficiently if everyone had the same maximum speed.

There are numerous scenarios where brisk - even aggressive - acceleration is both appropriate and safer than the alternative: passing on highways, getting onto highways, avoiding collisions, yellow lights where the choice is panic-stop or roll through the intersection on red.

 

[jtr1962]

Governed speeds are one of the reasons it takes trucks several minutes to pass one another on the highway. Traffic would also flow considerably less efficiently if everyone had the same maximum speed.

I'm against governing to the speed limit on highways, only on urban streets with pedestrians and cyclists who lack the protection of several tons of sheet metal.

There are numerous scenarios where brisk - even aggressive - acceleration is both appropriate and safer than the alternative: passing on highways, getting onto highways, avoiding collisions, yellow lights where the choice is panic-stop or roll through the intersection on red.

Again, only on urban local streets should rapid acceleration be disabled. Keep in mind most of the collisions you might potentially avoid in urban driving by aggressive acceleration are caused by inappropriate use of aggressive acceleration in the first place, such as lane jockeying, scooting into any empty space to gain one or two places, etc.