adaptive high beams approved by congress

Folks might find it interesting that this is not 'new' tech (although I'm sure it's much better), as it was introduced by GM on Olds and Caddy in 1952.

Oldsmobile might be history now, but back in 1952 the company made history along with Cadillac when the brands offered GM's Autronic Eye, the first automatic headlight-dimming system. When the phototube mounted on the dashboard detected approaching headlights, it would automatically switch the car's beams to low until the other lane was clear. Despite reportedly being overly sensitive and unreliable, the Autronic Eye evolved, and versions spread to other GM brands and continued in Cadillacs until the 1988 model year.

 

I bet you would have complained about safety belts being implemented too..........

 

Not the same concepts Marcus.

Drivers can have enough attentiveness to control the lights (and other things) but the ability to control the motion of your body in an accident needs assistance.

The original lap belts of the 60s helped, the shoulder belts of the 70s were better.

A trooper friend once told me he rarely unbuckled a dead person. But yet many are still thrown from vehicles every year.

 

The problem these headlights fix are the scenarios when you have to drive dimmed all the time due to oncoming traffic which is also unsafe as the low-beams don't light up the ditch enough to see possible obstructions like people or animals ahead.

 

Driving with highbeams on can chase animals out of the woods and in to the roadway.

An adaptive head light system should be able to direct the light on to the roadway, and or the path in which the vehicle will travel. Not off into the woods or where the vehicle is not intended to travel.

Also this will raise insurance rates.

 

Between the roadway and woods is a ditch, and it can be anywhere from 10' to 50' wide where i'm from. If there is a deer in the ditch you have to hit the breaks cause they tend to jump onto the road right in front of you no matter how far off they are. I prefer to see them coming so I can slow down on time.

2 things, I drive a lot at night and we have lots of wildlife. This is an easy safety feature than should definitely be an OPTION for those who feel they would benefit from it.

This legislation will finally let manufactures offer options so people can chose the ones they prefer rather than being forced to use tech from 50 years ago

Hitting deer is more expensive than a slight rate increase.

 

in my younger days, i loved driving at night. now i refuse to drive at night/cross country to visit relatives. its sun up/down and thats it. plus the light glare is getting worse as the years go by so that helps with driving only dur daylight hours.

 

I was thinking the same thing. More things that can fail and potentially cause an accident. Technology is nice when it works but when, not if, it breaks, it can cause some very serious problems if we're not prepared to step in and help the technology out.

 

potentially.

I will say, I do find it ironic that many who argue about complexity also argue against electric vehicles, which are actually much more simple.

I guess the real question is if folks are against it because it is more complicated, or against it because they don't understand it.

 

It's because they don't like change. I for one love the electric car argument too. The electronics on an ICE are more complicated than an electric car but are reliable. And lets not even talk about todays hybrids that somehow manage to have both and are reliable.

And this entire argument about the auto lights breaking and causing an accident is crap. I guarantee you this would operate much like highbeams today. You'd have the option to turn it on. If it breaks, you'll get a warning, and you just go back to using your highbeams like you do today. They'll make up non-issues to justify their stance.

 

This made me wince.... Because it's true...

 

I don't believe most object for either of those reasons. I keep hearing about the manufacturing and disposal of the batteries and limitations of the power grid (availability of charging stations, charging times on long trips, and load carrying ability of existing grid mostly) as the primary reasons. The manufacturing and disposal is probably a minor concern since just about everything electronic already carries one. The power grid, imho, is likely the main reason along with recharging times on long trips. Costs of battery replacement is one a hear occasionally.

 

If you are against adaptive headlights for the "added complexity" then you should be spouting off on the massively reduced complexity (claimed 80% reduction) that comes from electric vehicles. You can recognize the other impacts but to go off on a diatribe because some headlight is going to "increase complexity and add unnecessary cost" sure as heck should be balanced when you see reductions in other areas.

Ultimately I'm pointing out the hypocrisy that a few folks have around here, whatever makes a convenient argument. Your points about electric vehicles deserve discussion, however for folks to decry regulations ALLOWING adaptive headlights due to added cost and complexity is rather hypocritical if they are not then using the reverse of that argument to at least support that aspect of other discussions.

 

This is what adaptive lighting can help with. It allows lighting to be kept in just the driver's lane when there's oncoming traffic.

 

It doesn't do shit when they are behind you...especially after working a night shift driving home at 5:30 in the morning. My night vision is already fucked from working all night, now add these highly intense, DIMMED, lights. Oh, joy.

Talk about a recipe for an accident.

 

I worked nights for years, didn't have any affect on my vision. The dimming rearview mirror and dimming side mirrors alleviate this. Properly adjusted headlights shouldn't be blinding you from behind, depending how far back the car is.

 

Your did a great job trying to kick off the political shit show without provocation, so congrats.

You conveniently ignored that auto accidents are the leading cause of death for over half of the population and that 4+ million are seriously injured in auto accidents yearly.

But, but.... But seatbelts are a "brick in the wall" as you put it, and they didn't even do anything to improve driving safety for other drivers. You should skip the seatbelt, don't let the man keep you down!

 

Self cleaning windows would probably be a better solution than this evolving headlight technology. I have been in some vehicles that may as well not have any windows, the windows were so dirty. There is no way the driver has any visibility at night when another vehicle's lights are shining into the vehicle.