Adaptive headlights approved for the US!

[-Virgil-]

Let's try to keep the discussion vaguely lighting-relevant.

 

[KITROBASKIN]

I just hope it is effective. The high beam automation on our 2019 Tacoma is not a solution. Perhaps if I could adjust the sensitivity... Highway signs reflect so much light back to our truck, the high beams go off. The local terrain where we live is very hilly and that may be part of the reason oncoming cars get more of our high beam than I think is polite or safe.

If the adaptive headlight system is granular enough and the sensors are not blocked by ice or mud (my 1987 Dodge Raider had headlamp washers manually activated) and calibrated well, sounds great and worth it. Knowing how dangerous night time driving is, I have avoided it for years. The funny thing is when driving at night these days, it is amusing to see how car makers now are incorporating more style into their headlight/illumination design these days. Some cars look like they have determined, aggressive, shining 'eyebrows'.

 

[John_Galt]

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.

The rejection of "nonsensical inputs" makes significantly more sense when there are fewer options in general for maintaining a stable flight pattern. As to your example of bad input =100%= bad output, you are terribly incorrect. There are a vast number of reasons an attentive driver may purposefully swerve or edge out of their appropriate lane of traffic, even up onto a curb in urban environments. The roads are littered with debris, roadkill, people, animals, etc the list goes on. A safety system that actively prevents the driver from being able to respond appropriately to changing road conditions is no safety system at all. As is the complaint leveled towards the driver, "they work until they don't." As it stands now, the ultimate liability falls on the licensed person behind the wheel. Refer back to my apparently nonsensical claim that perhaps licensing standards should be raised significantly (as long as we're comparing to pilots this doesn't seem nonsensical).

As far as systems that restrict acceleration, while I can see the argument in an urban environment, I have very practical experience with governed vehicle speed/acceleration due to a previous employer. And there is nothing more unsettling than being fully aware, as you are "the guy" holding up significant volumes of tractor trailer traffic, and that your vehicle will not respond to your inputs if you need to move the hell out of your lane, or accelerate momentarily to avoid collision, and cut power to limit your speed when you're in the far-right lane with two lanes filled with tractors to your left, no shoulder to the right and a downhill stretch that every tractor behind you fully intends to take advantage of for building steam to make it up the next rise, whether you're in the lane or not.

I have stated it elsewhere, I'll repeat it here. Self driving cars are a pipedream, despite all the countless engineering working towards the goal. The first time a mercedes with an octagenarian at the wheel opts to take out a crowd of schoolchildren to save the driver, the first time people realize that their fancy new bathtub refuses to let them leave the driveway on an icey side street losing them their job, the factories will be burned down.

Back to the adaptive headlight issue, and in anticipation of yet more moderator redactions... The camera based system for the automatic high/low beam selection on my cx30 seems to have some strange issues with retroreflective signage at times, where it seems to want to give other drivers seizures. This same camera system controls the intermittent wipers, which keeps the camera lens fairly clear, but also causes some annoyances with very irregular wiper action. Quite distracting. I have not had sleet/snow to see how these systems respond, but my current assumption is "not well." If people pay a premium for these adb features, especially if it is on a rental basis which so many vehicle manufacturers seem to be heading towards, and they crap out in the first inclement weather the driver experiences, reverting back to the current "loose screw between the seat and wheel" control, people are also going to be irate. I can't imagine a solely camera based (*cough* tesla *cough*) approach being effective at modeling the changes needed in conditions of poor visibility. Perhaps it would be more effective to tell everyone to just forget their lowbeams exist at night, if the goal is to maximize the ability to see.

 

[jtr1962]

Refer back to my apparently nonsensical claim that perhaps licensing standards should be raised significantly (as long as we're comparing to pilots this doesn't seem nonsensical).

I agree on that. Licensing should be as difficult as getting a pilot's license. But it won't happen because there's no political will for it. Also, higher licensing standards would mean probably 90% of the population can never drive. While that would be a great thing for safety, we'll have to rapidly build out public transit so these people can still get around.

I have stated it elsewhere, I'll repeat it here. Self driving cars are a pipedream, despite all the countless engineering working towards the goal. The first time a mercedes with an octagenarian at the wheel opts to take out a crowd of schoolchildren to save the driver, the first time people realize that their fancy new bathtub refuses to let them leave the driveway on an icey side street losing them their job, the factories will be burned down.

I often hear the so-called trolley dilemma bought up with self-driving cars. The thing is only a human-driven car will get into that situation in the first place by going too fast in the face of normally expected obstacles in an urban environment. An AV would likely limit its speed to 20 or 25 mph so it has room to stop in any eventuality. But we don't even need AVs to get rid of the trolley dilemma. Just govern speeds on urban streets to the speed limit, even if the driver has full control otherwise. That alone will prevent most mishaps. The vast majority of incidents in cities are caused by speeding.

I can't imagine a solely camera based (*cough* tesla *cough*) approach being effective at modeling the changes needed in conditions of poor visibility.

And that's the problem in a nutshell with self-driving cars. The algorithms work well enough when they actually detect things. But you really need more sensors besides just cameras and image recognition software. We should use radar and/or lidar to detect things. We could use sound to detect heartbeats so you can distinguish animals or people from inanimate objects. Ultrasound might come in handy to determine if the object ahead is a paper bag you can safely run over, or a medium-sized rock you need to steer around. Microchanges in air density can further help to detect pedestrians, animals, or cyclists. Autonomous vehicles really have a lack of sensors problem more than anything else.

 

[lumen aeternum]

Waiting for a definition of the things...
"adaptive driving beam headlamps, which aren't the same as "adaptive headlights".

 

[John_Galt]

Virgil addressed the differences on the first page of discussion.

 

[-Virgil-]

you really need more sensors besides just cameras and image recognition software. We should use radar and/or lidar to detect things.

The entire automotive industry agrees with this....except for Elon Musk, who thinks lidar is for pedophiles (or whatever the latest gradeschool poo-flinging is that he's done on twitter).

 

[SubLGT]

Adaptive Head Lights - Coming to the US???

I read an article today that stated that buried in the new infrastructure bill, adaptive head lights would be allowed in the US. I hope this is true. www.cnet.com › roadshow › newsAdaptive headlights finally legal in US with Biden's ... I wonder if when available if Ford will sent an update...

www.f150gen14.com

In the above thread, some F-150 owners in the USA claim they have been able to enable ADB via software (FORScan) changes.

Are some current F-150 USA production trucks actually being equipped with software disabled ADB headlights?

 

[-Virgil-]

Well, it would make sense, because ADB (as per SAE J3069) is offered on the F150 in Canada, where it's been legal since 2019.

 

[SubLGT]

Can Ford legally sell an ADB equipped F-150 in the USA, if the ADB is software disabled?

 

[Alaric Darconville]

Can Ford legally sell an ADB equipped F-150 in the USA, if the ADB is software disabled?

If they certify that it is compliant with FMVSS 108, they can. We don't work on a type approval basis here.

 

[-Virgil-]

Can Ford legally sell an ADB equipped F-150 in the USA, if the ADB is software disabled?

Certainly. So can (and do) Audi, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and others.

 

[SubLGT]

....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.

Does this document (Feb 1, 2022) constitute amending FMVSS108 ?

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-02/ADB-Final-Rule-02-01-2022-web.pdf

SUMMARY: This document amends NHTSA's lighting standard to permit the certification of adaptive driving beam (ADB) headlamps. ADB headlamps utilize technology that actively modifies a vehicle's headlamp beams to provide more illumination while not glaring other vehicles. The requirements adopted today are intended to amend the lighting standard to permit this technology and establish performance requirements for these systems to ensure that they operate safely. ADB has the potential to reduce the risk of crashes by increasing visibility without increasing glare. The agency initiated this rulemaking in response to a petition for rulemaking from Toyota Motor North America, Inc.

 

[SubLGT]

I found the answer to my question.

NHTSA to Allow Adaptive Driving Beam Headlights on New Vehicles, Improving Safety for Drivers, Pedestrians, and Cyclists | NHTSA

www.nhtsa.gov

The U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a final rule today allowing automakers to install adaptive driving beam headlights on new vehicles. This satisfies a requirement in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law more than a year and a half ahead of schedule.....

....The final rule amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment." The amendments adopted today are intended to allow manufacturers to offer this technology and establish performance requirements for these systems to ensure that they operate safely.

 

[Mister Ed]

I'm excited, as I experienced just the basics of this with a toyota I rented with the car being able to control the high-beams turning them on/off automatically. I really think this will be a great safety feature coming.

 

[-Virgil-]

I'm afraid it's still not time to break out the bubbly and start celebrating. I've read the final rule three times (and counting). It's a heaping helping of smug, deliberate scorn for well-proven international practice, with substitution instead of rules pretty much guaranteed to make US ADB systems inferior to those in the rest of the world. :-(

 

[John_Galt]

[Off-topic trolling/baiting removed by moderator]

Any particular examples, -Virgil-?

 

[och]

On BMWs and MBs in the US that have the hardware but software locked to disable adaptive driving beams, there are people who offer "remote coding" services to unlock the feature.

 

[-Virgil-]

Yeah, like this dude did, 'way back in 2017. Call me skeptical, but I think he might not have been telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when he says he undid the modification and put it back to the standard USA-spec configuration.

 

[och]

Yeah, like this dude did, 'way back in 2017. Call me skeptical, but I think he might not have been telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when he says he undid the modification and put it back to the standard USA-spec configuration.

I had it done on my wife's car earlier this year, or maybe it was late last year. Either way, I didn't care much about the legality, just wanted to experience how it works. Her BMW has adaptive laser lights, which are completely neutered of their full potential in the US. I understand with these lights there is the LED matrix setup that distributes the adaptive high beam pattern, and then there is also a separate laser beam that throws light even further than full LED high beam... I'm not sure if the laser beam even ever activates on the US spec models.

Since I have enabled the adaptive function, I can say that it is very useful on dark country roads with little traffic. It illuminates further and bends the light around oncoming cars and cars ahead, but even more importantly, it illuminates the sides of the road at least twice as much as just the low beam.

Doesn't do anything on busier highways due to amount of lights, and doesn't work in rain. I'm sure there is a lot of room for this tech to improve in the future.