posted by
martyb
on Tuesday January 15 2019, @11:27PM
from the blinded-by-even-more-distant-oncoming-traffic dept.
from the blinded-by-even-more-distant-oncoming-traffic dept.
Most people don’t turn on their car’s headlights and think, I wish they were brighter. Shuji Nakamura is not most people.
The Nobel Prize-winning illumination scientist has spent the past five years developing a laser-based lighting system. His company, SLD Laser, says the new design is 10 times brighter than today’s LED lights, capable of illuminating objects a kilometer away while using less power than any current technology. And unlike a regular, dumb headlight, the laser can potentially be integrated into current and forthcoming driver-assistance systems.
Do headlights need to be brighter?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Headlight of the Future Is a Laser
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 105 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
2
(1)
2
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @11:30PM (24 children)
I don't need to be blinded, literally, by oncoming headlights. Go back to making sushi and Godzilla movies.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday January 15 2019, @11:36PM (4 children)
That was my thought too, but it seems they will actually detect what they are pointing at:
Of course, computer vision systems don't always stop a car from plowing into a human being, so can they be trusted to prevent blindness?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:59PM (2 children)
BUT is it really a laser? Aren't most lasers fairly narrowband? I can understand the use of lasers in stuff like LIDAR but for illuminating a wide range of stuff for human vision wouldn't you need something with a broader spectrum?
I think it might be based on SLED/SLDs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminescent_diode [wikipedia.org]
Maybe in the future if AR goggles become much better, wide view and light enough we can start using them for night vision and not resort to blindingly bright lights.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:18PM (1 child)
Laser beams do diverge over a distance, and they could increase this effect as needed so that it delivers the right amount of illumination to an object 1 kilometer away, for example. I assume a complete system will use smaller infrared lasers or something to measure the distance to an object, calculate scattering due to fog, etc.
They also talk about combining it with LEDs for the American market:
You want to force everyone to wear some kind of AR goggles when they drive? It would be harder to do that than it is to simply mandate that all cars have headlights. Maybe the windshield could be tweaked with some kind of AR features instead. However, at the timescales we're looking at for those changes, we will see the driverless car revolution instead.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @05:01PM
Seems you're misreading what I wrote.
Look up the terms narrowband and spectrum.
See also: https://www.comsol.com/blogs/calculating-the-emission-spectra-from-common-light-sources/ [comsol.com]
RGB LED spectra: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Red-YellowGreen-Blue_LED_spectra.png [wikimedia.org]
Laser spectra: https://web.archive.org/web/20160304044244/http://ledmuseum.candlepower.us/rlspec4.htm [archive.org] (do pay attention to the horizontal numbers some are "zoomed in" to a very narrow area).
Secondly I never mentioned anything about mandating AR goggles.
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:30PM
Unless that also takes reflective surfaces into account, this is still a very stupid idea.
(Score: 5, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday January 15 2019, @11:38PM (1 child)
Ok, Ok,, stop already. I'll mount them on sharks instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:54AM
I was thinking: little sharks under the headlights...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by theluggage on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:06AM (5 children)
The modern Xenon (or whatever those horrible modern blinding twinkly things are called) are bad enough - I assume its the tiny size of the lights that, makes them blinding when they're coming at you and makes it look like the car behind is flashing its headlights at you every time it goes over a bump - similar reason to why stars twinkle and planets don't (or, thanks to the night-vision-decimating colour temperature, that there's a police car behind you).
If you need to see what is a kilometre away then you're driving too fast, and are liable to blind anybody 100m away.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:02AM (2 children)
Actually, you hit on the brilliance (pun intended) of using lasers for down-road illumination. Ordinary headlights have wide beamspread, so, indeed, if there is enough light reaching 1km downroad to see by you will be blinding anyone intercepting that light at 10% of the distance. With lasers, beam divergence is controlled and the relative brightness close up and far away is much much less different.
I doubt the early prototypes are working this way, but I think a great way of using lasers for downroad illumination would be for the lasers to emit uniformly from a tall bar the width of the vehicle, so they are a continuous relatively soft beam with very little divergence. If they are coming from two point sources there will still be higher intensity near the sources, but not as dramatic as with conventional bulbs.
Picture an illumination pattern which only reaches the ground 20' away to the left and maybe 50' away to the right, but 2500' away straight ahead. As implied in the summary, picture any illumination pattern that tickles your fancy - lasers can do that.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @04:01AM
In Germany, checking the headlight alignment is part of the regular inspection. I've never had that done in the USA. So in the future, bad alignment will mean a laser to the face.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:24PM
Wide beamspread? Please: there's been enough work on headlight divergence - they are a solved problem. No need risking our eyesight hundreds of times each night, just because someone is too jittery to drive without seeing miles and miles of road ahead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:06PM (1 child)
The problem with those lights isn't the brightness, it's them being improperly aimed and often coming from taller vehicles. I'm not sure what the law is elsewhere, but around here there are rules that prohibit lights from being aimed too high. Unfortunately, enforcement seems to be lax.
This invention though makes very little sense as it's relatively OK as a replacement for the high beams, but every time you go around a curve, make a lane change or turn, you'll be illuminating a huge area that doesn't really need to be lit.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday January 21 2019, @06:44PM
Even if not aimed too high for level ground they'll be aimed wrong whenever you go over a hill.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:15AM
Those idiots that put brighter white or blue bulbs in are doing the opposite of what the Europeans already figured out. Put in a yellow bulb that's DOT approved and you'll see the road better, and yellow cuts through fog better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:35AM
We need an affordable, portable anti-laser cannon to fend off the Japanese and their car headlights. What a stoooopid idea. PhD, huh? Nobel winner, huh? Peanut head I say.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:44AM (2 children)
That's not how lasers work. Lasers are focused, so they will only be illuminating the care and not the windows.
In fact, you'll probably end up with the opposite problem. Instead of being blinded, you won't even see the headlights of the car behind you, since the lasers won't be fired at any of the windows.
I expect what will happen is that cars end up with some kind of permanent DRL so other people can see the car, and the car itself uses lasers to selectively illuminate targets.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:04AM
Don't worry, you'll see them. You forget that we have atmosphere and stuff floating in it. Ever seen green lasers pointed at the sky? Why do you see the beam? (/me imaging you thinking hard)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:22PM
Depends how they're aimed. The current issue we have with those bright head lights is that they're often not aimed properly. If they're aimed properly, you don't get much extra distance out of the lights, but you do get a bit of extra light bouncing to the sides.
One of the big concerns I'd have is that since they are more focused, that you'd lose out on the light that you'd have lighting up the sides of the road where pedestrians and animals that might come into the roadway are before doing so.
In general, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. At night when you're using the headlights, you should be going more slowly anyways, because you'll see far less of what's going on than you would during the day.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:52AM (2 children)
> Go back to making sushi and Godzilla movies.
Unnecessary racism, AC. Plus a swear word in the subject. Are you a 12 year old?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:09PM (1 child)
And are you a virgin butterfly attending sunday school?
By the way, there was no racism involved.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday January 17 2019, @09:04AM
> And are you a virgin butterfly attending sunday school?
Civilisation implies civility.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Wednesday January 16 2019, @01:25PM (1 child)
... and who TF needs to see things a kilometer away? They must have extremely poor brakes if they need to apply them that far ahead.
In the UK there are very few roads where you can see a kilometer ahead even in broad daylight, and even if other cars were not in the way of your view. In any case there is always a lot going on much closer than 1 km that needs your attention. When I leave my house, for the first 10 miles I never see further than about 100 yds due to the curves and dips in the road, yet somehow I live.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:31PM
Pretty much. At 90kph, you'd be doing that distance in 40 seconds, at 113kph is more like 30 seconds.
You need roughly 5 seconds at a minimum to drive safely, and 10 seconds is a more reasonable number. 30 seconds is significant overkill and in practice, you'd probably want to aim the headlight down so that it doesn't blind the drivers and oncoming traffic.
Typical headlights will reveal far more than they do, if you point them less at the road and more forward, but that runs the risk of blinding oncoming traffic an dcausing collisions.
The biggest benefit from this would be for the central part of the headlight illuminating the bits that are directly in front of you.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Wednesday January 16 2019, @04:00PM
Will this burn out the cameras on self driving cars?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Tuesday January 15 2019, @11:48PM (6 children)
are those grey shadows that show up in heavy rain/fog. Guess what dipshit? Only half of your headlights are for you to see what's in front of you. The other half? So I can see your hidden ass in thick fog and/or rain.
When in doubt turn your fucking headlights on and quit thinking of the $0.12 it will potentially cost you. Or wake up and look around, either works for me, you grey accidents waiting to happen.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 1) by NateMich on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:56AM (2 children)
What?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @04:29AM (1 child)
He's talking about folks who drive with their headlights off in poor visibility weather, making them hard to see. It doesn't make me happy either.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:42PM
Thankfully, newer cars tends to automatically turn the lights on for you in such conditions. Make it easier to just let the car do it and you solve 1/2 the problem.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Wednesday January 16 2019, @01:50PM
You are right to a point, but then most people over-do it. When you can plainly see cars at the limit of the physical line of sight of the road you are on, then lights are not just unnecessary, but are a disadvantage. Often I can still recognise the makes of cars at this distance but many drivers nevertheless have headlights on. These light only create dazzle for no purpose, and by closing your eyes' iris aperture they reduce the visibility of things which are not vehicles.
I don't have a problem seeing other cars with or without lights on for most of the legally "unlit" hours, and I wonder if people who do would meet the driving eyesight requirements. OTOH what I do have problems with is for example seeing whether a pedestrian I have seen ahead near the edge of the off-side pavement is going to walk out or not, while some approaching clown between me and them has unnecessary headlights blazing. My own headlights would make no difference, because even if on they are dipped as they should be.
I suppose someone will suggest that pedestrians should also carry lights as powerful as car ones. Of course most drivers never give a thought to anticipating the movements of pedestrians anyway, so boosting the visiblity of cars at the expense of reducing that of pedestrians does not matter to them.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:38PM
Also, put down the phone. Focus on driving.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:58PM
And another thing:
TURN OFF YOUR FUCKING FOG LAMPS!!! It's bad enough that the headlights are blindingly bright, but these fucksticks have their fog lamps on too, some that are just as bad as the headlights!
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:03AM (29 children)
I've had enough of being blinded by poorly adjusted HID headlights. They are NOT BETTER, they are a hazard to oncoming drivers !!!!!!
Fuck all the engineers who thought that brighter lights were a good idea. May they all die a painful death from some horrible disease.
And if you disagree with what I wrote, fuck you too.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:15AM (20 children)
There is some possibility that those lights aren't exactly "too bright". Often enough, I see them poorly aimed, into the eyes of oncoming drivers. If the damned idiots took the time, or paid a mechanic to adjust the lights properly, life would be better for all of us.
Of course, even with all the headlights on the road properly adjusted, some of them are still just too damned bright!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:44AM (1 child)
BRIGHTER THAN THE NEW AMERICAN DRIVERS WHO LEAVE THEM IN THE "BLIND ONCOMING CARS" SETTING.
"HIGH BEAMS" for those of us who remember that you DON'T USE THEM IN TRAFFIC.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:41PM
But some people have a headlight that has failed. So they brilliantly come to the insightful realization that switching to the high beams all the time means that they will never need to get their malfunctioning headlight fixed. Nothing could possibly go wrong. It's easy, quick and cheap. The American Way.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RS3 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:45AM (9 children)
I agree with both of your points, however, there are many hills and curves where I live. No amount of properly aiming a fixed pattern will stop the insanely bright headlight from hitting me directly in the eyes frequently. I don't understand how we're all safer when drivers are being blinded.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @01:57AM (2 children)
One of the counterintuitive tricks I was taught growing up - as you top a hill, switch to high beams, so they don't shine into the eyes of oncoming drivers. As you level off, switch back to low beams. I don't think that is taught anymore, and even if it were, no one would actually do it.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:56AM (1 child)
Hah, I do that too, but was never taught. Seems like a courtesy.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:45PM
Friend, you use such strange words. What is this courtesy thing you speak of? Some strange new thing that nobody has heard of?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:11AM (5 children)
Sounds like the solution here is dynamically adjusting headlights, you know, maybe throw in a gyroscope and program some smarts into it. Heck, maybe use the gyro in your phone and have it so it connect to the phone..
But nooooo, we need moar brightness!! Fucking hoons!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RS3 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @04:28AM (3 children)
I don't know what a "hoon" is, but evidently they procreate. :)
But I digress... Long before any of us were born, very industrious, intelligent people worked tirelessly figuring out what headlight brightness, pattern, and color temperature was the best compromise for all drivers in all road and driving conditions. Of course with the addition of "high beams", "brights", whatever you want to call them. For probably 70 years these standards were law. Now suddenly insanely bright headlights are better? Did human eyes evolve suddenly? Mine did not and I'm in fear of, and reasonably sure I will end up running into something or someone because I can not see anything when there are oncoming headlights of new cars. I bought and always use a dashcam.
I hated HID (High Intensity Discharge) when they came out. They're xenon arc lamps for anyone who cares (camera flash lamp in continuous arc mode.)
Now they literally pale in comparison to the LED lights coming out. New LEDs are absolutely insane.
Of course you get the idiots buying the aftermarket LED lamps which are significantly brighter still, and not DOT approved pattern nor power; off-road only, right?
I noticed an infomercial for yellow-tinted glasses to help cut down on headlight glare. I already have some similar so I will try them at night and report back.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Webweasel on Wednesday January 16 2019, @09:58AM (2 children)
A hoon, in Australia and New Zealand, is a person who deliberately drives a vehicle in a reckless or dangerous manner, generally in order to provoke a reaction from onlookers.
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:47PM
Interesting. I thought they drove like that in order to more effectively communicate by text massages.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:29PM
> A hoon, in Australia and New Zealand, is a person who deliberately drives a vehicle in a reckless or dangerous manner, generally in order to provoke a reaction from onlookers.
Thanks for that! You'd think I could have looked it up or something. It was the wee hours and my ambition was minimal. I'm in the USA and I haven't seen nor heard of such animals, but we have lots of car racing, monster truck rallies, etc., so maybe in the US hoons are capitalists. They do make for some awesome youtube videos, especially under the "like a boss" titles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @05:13PM
How's a gyro going to help? Ensure the light is incorrectly pointed more steeply into an uphill slope?
The beam should be tracking the road not the orientation of the car. The gyro won't tell you enough about the road.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @01:15AM (7 children)
There is a slight chance that older car drivers will add brighter lights to compensate living in a brighter world, and make comments about your family.
But you are one of those dim americans who need it bigger, brighter, faster.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @01:53AM (6 children)
No, retard. I don't see old people with HID's on their vehicles. The vast majority of them are running OEM headlights. The HID's and assorted other headlights are on vehicles owned by younger drivers. Teens and early twenties own the most, then the 25-35 year olds. From 35 on up, it seems to taper off to near zero. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Just for information, when I was a kid, there were none of these bright lights. Pretty much all headlights were incandescent lights. I must have been 20 when quartz halogen hit the market, and they were not widely adopted immediately. Earliest halogen lights were fairly bright, but not exceptionally so - they were still a yellowish light. Over the course of a few years, halogens got whiter, and brighter, until it made sense to pay a little extra for them. A good halogen bulb is truly superior to any incandescent. Anything brighter just doesn't make a lot of sense, unless the drive suffers from libido problems. And, THAT from a guy who drives pretty fast, even at night.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @04:41AM (4 children)
In my area there are plenty of older (80s) people with new cars (esp. anything German) with HID and the way brighter LED headlights. I live amongst the wealthy.
Perhaps you're referring to the illegal aftermarket retrofit lights? You can always spot them because they're absurdly blue and there's no high beam, so the idiots aim them higher.
You mentioned the halogens. When I was a kid (early 80s) I knew a guy who had aftermarket halogens and he had to change them out for every state inspection, which he gladly did. I never had the heart to tell him I didn't think they were all that. Those guys have fragile egos and all. By the late 80s sealed-beam halogens were legal and available, and getting brighter. They're in a new much brighter flavor now too: Sylvania Silverstar for example.
(Score: 2) by NoMaster on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:03AM (3 children)
What backwards 3rd-world country was that in? Because halogen headlights have been standard fitment throughout most of the world since the early-mid 70's. My first car was a Toyota with H4 halogen headlamps as original equipment from 1979; miles brighter than even the last tungsten headlamps from the 60's & early 70's (and even brighter when fitted with 95/70W globes ;))
(Oh. Wikipedia tells me the US was way behind everyone else, and when they did adopt halogens in the 80's they generally had 25% less output than the rest of the world...)
Live free or fuck off and take your naïve Libertarian fantasies with you...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:36PM (1 child)
Yes, the US stays behind in automotive technology because the DOT spells out exactly what is permitted, meaning anything else is NOT permitted. Seven to ten years after Europe and Asia adopts something new, the DOT gets around to approving it. In the traditional sense of conservative, our DOT is ultra conservative.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:38PM
As well it should be, at this point the essential bits of how to build and operate a car safely is pretty well established. Additional features and the like should be added and changed cautiously.
The bigger issue tends to be that we allow cars to use the brake lights as brakelights and turn signals which causes all sorts of mayhem when the car behind you has to guess from first blink whether the car ahead is braking or about to turn. It's foolish and just there to save a few dollars.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @04:00PM
I'm in USA and you're probably not. It's amazing how much misconception there is about USA.
I don't like: "the US is way behind everyone else". Maybe we exercise wisdom and caution. I don't think that blinding oncoming drivers is progress (although it's rampant now).
USA is made up of States, and "States' Rights" has been an ongoing fight since 1776. The Feds try to force their rules onto the states. They can't really do it legally, but they gather and redistribute so much money that they can force us into conformity by threatening to withhold $. A great example is federal highway money.
Yes, when halogens were first allowed they had a 35W limit for low-beams and 55 for high. The bulb manufacturers figured out how to get maximum light output from that 35W. As an engineer, I'm amazed at the stupidity of enacting a law regarding light output based on watts consumed. We have the ability to measure actual light output, right?
But I digress- generally transportation laws are uniform, but each state has much discretion re: interpretation, implementation, enforcement, etc. For example: many states have enacted laws specifically forbidding the use of "driving" or "fog" lights when there are oncoming cars. Half of cars seem to have them on anyway. Many states have annual auto inspection, but some do not (!!!). My state allows independent shops to both do the inspection AND the repairs (with the owner's approval). That is Conflict of Interest. I'm a car nut and do all my own work, but most of my friends and relatives get huge bills for unnecessary work. You'd think there would be more policing, undercover stings, etc., but nope. A brake job used to cost $50 / axle. Now I get friends coming to me in desperation due to a $500-1500 estimate. Shops are offering financing now!! I think it needs to be a law that if a shop does the inspecting, they are NOT allowed to do the repair. I'd rather have state run inspection stations.
And yes, headlight type, bulb wattage, aim, etc., are all part of state inspection, and it's up to the shop to do it, and some do. In my state and most states, at any time a state cop can pull a car over and fail it for state inspection violation, and if it's bad enough, prevent you from driving it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:20AM
No, retard. OLDER CARS. Not older drivers driving newer cars. TFA is about headlights of the future so commenting about drivers' age seems out of place.
You dim bulb.
(Score: 4, Funny) by requerdanos on Wednesday January 16 2019, @01:05AM (5 children)
Gee, I never thought I'd find people who seriously advocate the position of "640 lumens ought to be enough for anyone."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @01:55AM (4 children)
Funny - but yes, there is some limit. I've actually been driving along on a nicely sunlit day, and met a pair of headlights that were painfully bright. That is well and truly excessive.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by coolgopher on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:04AM (1 child)
It's always lovely when you're on the freeway and the car behind you has bright enough headlights that your own car is casting a shadow in front of you where you're driving, and all you can really see are the sides of the road...
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:09PM
For me it's that the inside of my vehicle is so brightly lit by the car behind me that it's 100% distracting. It's illegal to drive with interior lights on, so it should be illegal for someone to illuminate my interior similarly.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:00PM (1 child)
You're doing it wrong.
The purpose of the light is to see and be seen.
See things so that you don't hit them; be seen by other things so they don't hit you and/or stay out of your path.
To be seen, you don't need a whole lot of light, which is why so-called "daytime running lights" can be so much dimmer than full headlights and still be effective.
To see, you need to emit different amounts of light depending upon whether or not you are trying to see something that, itself, emits light.
If the something emits light, you need a low light output just to get the context of the lighted thing (you can see the lighted thing because of its own light).
If you are not hurtling towards something that emits light, then there is a linear relationship more light=safer as regards visibility.
A sane, intelligent control system for this would be to observe and detect light received from within a certain number of degrees of straight ahead, and reduce or increase light output based upon whether light's coming in.
Is is bright ahead? Don't emit much light. Be respectful.
Is it dark ahead? Try to re-create the luminous conditions of a small sun. Aim for visibility.
Frankly, if your light control device of choice is a shotgun, all this is probably sailing over your head with the speed of photons, but perhaps having the information here will at least help someone else.
"Not getting any better" is a stupid solution.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:51AM
For me, you miss the "funny" mark. But, you do hit on something. Maybe all those high intensity light sources should be mandated to be self dimming. Even professional truck drivers neglect to dim their headlights these days, or are slow to react when they meet a vehicle. Headlights that dimmed themselves immediately when meeting another vehicle at night would be great. Or, measure the lumens coming in, and dim when the light level reaches that of a rather dim, but legal headlight 3/4 mile away. I chose 3/4 mile distance, because that is how far away the HID is blinding. With old, incandescent headlights, the law said lights should be dimmed at a distance of 500 feet, but we can't use that as a safe distance with today's lights. (actually 500 ft was inadequate even with those headlights of days gone by)
(Score: 5, Funny) by sjames on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:03AM
The punishment should fit the crime. They should be belted into a car seat and blasted with a bank of high powered spot lights until they burst into flames.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:46AM
Please, for the sake of my ears, stop swearing AC? Thanks in advance!
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:04AM (12 children)
Been thinking along this route for a long time. Just wasn't sure how to pull it off, safely.
....and yes, some of us DO want it brighter.. Melt the plastic bumpers off incoming cars bright.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:19AM (10 children)
Too many people think like you do. So, uhhh, what is your response when the oncoming driver is blinded, and drives right into your dumb ass? What are you going to have to say to him, while you're standing around, waiting for St. Peter to open up in the morning?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @01:05AM (3 children)
Easy solution, vote blue.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @01:42AM (1 child)
Dafuq does voting have to do with the issue?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:11AM
Because at least democrats can be convinced to put a law that forbade idiots with fucked up lights on the road. So you don't have to wait for St. Peter to open up early and shit like that. Dafuq it has to do with it.
Imagine that. Government making laws ...
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:51PM
Headlights are already excessively bright in the blue part of the spectrum.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @04:45AM (5 children)
For many years I've imagined an automatically guided LASER- the destructive kind- that would home in on overly bright headlights and give 'em back some photons.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:19PM (4 children)
Since they came out with those insanely bright blue headlights I have fantasized about mounting rear-facing klieg lights on my cargo rack that automatically switch on when those people come up behind me. A crazy loud infrasonic speaker/LRAD to rattle their car would underscore the message.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @04:05PM (1 child)
Yep, that and a rear-facing sprayer that would first spray syrup at the tailgater's windshield, and if that doesn't back them off, then cooking oil. All that said, I rarely pay attention to what's behind me.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:19PM
You're not paranoid enough.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:22AM
I always thought a couple of mirrors that could be adjusted to reflect their own headlights back into their faces would get the point across very nicely.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:22AM
That's what adjustable mirrors are for. Adjust your side mirror to aim that light right back and see how quickly drivers back off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:57AM
This is obviously a Trump voter. Probably owns an assault rifle too.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:13AM (4 children)
Lasers are not the answer.
I have to drive through areas where there are deer that run out in the middle of traffic. You need to turn your bright lights to see the suckers at the edge of the road. Problem comes when someone is coming from the other direction, and you have to turn the brights off to prevent blinding them. The frequency of newer headlights is downright blinding when you are bathed in their bright mode. Perhaps something more towards the orange end of the light scale would keep your night vision in tact when brighter lights are used?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:18AM (1 child)
Dumbass, the laser solves your problem by vaporizing the deer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:41PM
Vaporising the deer?, I spy a townie...
That would be a total waste of good venison....Bambi rôti à la étoile de la mort FTW!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:12AM
Lasata: lasers are so always the answer.
Keep the beam at low enough intensity (as low or lower than traditional headlamps) and there is no foul here.
High beam and low beam intensity are very close, I think traditional halogen bulbs are 65W and 55W respectively. What is different is where the light is directed. With lasers, you can direct high beam intensity in "safe" directions without as much risk of sending it into oncoming drivers' eyes.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheFool on Wednesday January 16 2019, @04:31AM
As someone who also lives in a deer (and occasional moose) heavy area... perhaps we could power up the lasers, instead? And maybe instead of using them as headlights, we could use them as an auto-turret. If it was going to run in front of your car anyway, zapping it seems reasonable. If we were really lucky, maybe we could convince the state to let us keep the meal as well.
But yes, the newer bluish headlights are awful to meet on the road. Whoever designed those clearly lived in a copious amount of light pollution. I don't find them that bad when I have to travel into city, but they are downright unbearable when out in the country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:24AM
do not stare into laser beam with remaining eye.
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:49AM (10 children)
Enough said.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:08AM (6 children)
So, picture a windshield which identifies the pulse frequency/phase of the oncoming headlamps, mutes them down to a still visible but dim level, and opens as clear as possible for the light pulses returning from your headlamps.
If everybody's headlamps pulsed with a low (like 1%) duty cycle, that could work pretty well in most situations. If your headlamps are "phase locked" with an oncoming car's, your system can dither the phase randomly until they're sufficiently out of phase and the oncoming lamps' illumination can be dimmed again.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @04:07AM
Sucks to be a cyclist or pedestrian in your world.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by RS3 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @04:50AM (4 children)
Cool idea and probably practical. You could do it with glasses too, instead of the whole windshield. And I assume you're referring to using liquid-crystal?
But a true genius had a similar and very workable idea a very long time ago: https://www.polarization.com/land/land.html [polarization.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:53PM (3 children)
Polarization is cool in lots of ways, but doesn't have as much potential as time division multiplexing...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @04:03PM (2 children)
Absolutely correct. I was just pointing out the time-frame that Dr. Land did this. I'm sure he envisioned TDM too! He is one of history's most under-recognized geniuses.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 16 2019, @04:27PM (1 child)
One downside to the TDM approach would be attenuation of ambient light...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:10PM
You inspired a thought that I'm writing before thinking about it, but how about VR goggles for all of this? I've noticed many dashcams have (some much) better night vision than I do. I see very well at night, but maybe too well. Yeah, I think I like the idea, until something goes wrong, but it's pretty easy to get them off quickly. I'm sure people are already doing this, but I'm curious what others think.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:18AM (2 children)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:14AM (1 child)
Or we could just mandate not using aircraft landing lights as headlights.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Kalas on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:24AM
Nah, seems easier to just outlaw functioning eyeballs.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by pTamok on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:00AM (5 children)
Perhaps a different technological solution would be infra-red headlights coupled with a IR-cameras and high-quality full-screen Head-Up Display. That way you wouldn't blind other drivers with high-intensity light and you could compete in bragging rights on how good your HUD was. One example is https://www.autoevolution.com/news/genesis-g80-demo-car-shows-the-wonders-of-augmented-reality-hud-at-ces-2019-131523.html [autoevolution.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by fyngyrz on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:27PM (4 children)
The two problems with high-IR systems (which are the ones that would need IR headlights, they shine a non-human-visible light) are that a lot of objects in the world don't show up in brightnesses that allow you to distinguish between them and the background, and really bright IR light sources, even though you can't see them (no cells respond to them with nerve signals) still manage to land fairly well focused within your eye, and at sufficient levels can be harmful. "Not visible to humans" doesn't mean "not there."
Low-IR systems (where the objects radiate, and the camera sees what they radiate) are very useful, and particularly so in a heads-up kind of system. The problem with low-IR systems is non-radiating road hazards. Potholes, tree branches, cold stalled vehicles and accident debris, pranks. The road itself may not radiate sufficiently differently for a low IR system to distinguish it from the surroundings.
So while a low IR system is great for emissive road hazards, you still have to couple it with a visible light illuminator and/or radar or similar; otherwise you're just asking to have an accident. Radar has the same problem as high-IR; some objects just aren't very reflective at those wavelengths.
--
Calories? I think you mean delicious points.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by deimtee on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:31PM (2 children)
Why bother with the IR? Just do it with visible light. Cameras and a videoscreen instead of a windscreen. Put a maximum level in the brightness somewhere and problem solved.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:51PM (1 child)
Well, for low IR, because it gives you something visible light does not: The ability to spot living creatures as standout visual items. A low IR system is a huge benefit when driving. Visible light shows everything, so it's totally up to you to spot things. And animals can be very hard to spot. But a low IR system will do it very well and make them highly noticeable.
Really, until you have seen a low IR system in use, it's difficult to understand just how much they lower risk.
--
But, Your Honor, the light had dopplered to green.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:16AM
Ok, my bad. I was more responding to your list of problems with IR, and totally missed your last paragraph.
But yeah, some sort of smart blending of IR/visible, possibly with data overlays, would be awesome.
One possible problem with the camera/display model is that if it is correctly set up for the driver, it is going to be so warped for the passengers that it will induce motion sickness, and backseat drivers are going to be screaming about things that aren't a problem.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:58PM
Thank-you for the explanation, I really appreciate it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:14AM
Assuming that this is the blue laser-white phosphor combo, it's been around for a couple of years..aren't the Germans using them on some high-end cars ? (Positive I saw a demo headlight module a couple of years back..can remember speculating if this would lead to a rise in targetted techie car vandalism to get the high wattage laser modules)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:56PM (2 children)
Headlights need to be SMARTER.
What if the headlight were more like a projector. Certain pixels of the light output could then be selectively dimmed in the shape of an oncoming car.
Other shapes could selectively be de-illuminated as well, such as speed limit signs.
Instead of making headlamps out of lasers, make lasers out of headlamps.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:51PM (1 child)
Then you wouldn't be able to see other cars on the road lol
(I'm kidding)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 16 2019, @09:59PM
You wouldn't blind other cars. But I thought you might say: you wouldn't be able to see pedestrians on the road.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.