[calmbonsai]

This is largely poor regulation. The assumption that "more bright = more safe" and the lack of enough real-world testing.

The only other product analogy that comes to mind is "thicker = better" for hiking socks. When they got too thick, they applied too much pressure to the heal and also provided additional moment distance making it far easier to roll an ankle.

[epistasis]

Yes, and this poor attitude of "safety" meaning "safe for the driver" extends to all sorts of terrible safety regulations.

41% of vehicle deaths are people not even in a car[1]. Yet car safety regulation is heavily focused on the 59% that are, nothing to regulate the ridiculous gender-affirming hood heights or aftermarket lifts that turn a survivable collision into a deadly collision.

[1] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... Table 1, paragraph above

[logancbrown]

It doesn't help your case when you state inflammatory remarks like "gender-affirming hood heights". This isn't reddit.

The data even points to the fact that, by total vehicles vs vehicles that cause pedestrian deaths, regular passenger cars cause 19.9 pedestrian deaths per 1MM registered vehicles while trucks, as and entire category, cause 19.2 pedestrians deaths per 1MM registered vehicles.

"nothing to regulate" is also an exaggeration. Many states to regulate aftermarket lifts. 6" lifts are typically the maximum legally allowed limit for trucks like the F150. You only see them higher because there is no enforcement of the rule.

[tristor]

> You only see them higher because there is no enforcement of the rule.

Unenforced rules effectively don't exist. Selectively enforced rules are a focal point for discrimination and corruption. I don't think you're making the argument you think you are.

[logancbrown]

If you are so knowledgeable, then what argument am I making?

[jasonlotito]

It doesn't help your case when you state inflammatory comments like "If you are so knowledgeable, then what argument am I making?". This isn't reddit.

[jader201]

> Yet all car safety regulation on the 59% that are

I don’t think you meant literally “all”, but one that comes to mind that definitely is intended for pedestrian safety is around requiring that EVs make audible noises when they’re moving at slow speeds (the fake humming as they move forward, and the beeping as they reverse).

[realo]

Forget about EVs.

Most regular SUVs should be taken off the road.

Look at this example: a dozen kids aligned in a neat row in front of the SUV and the soccer mom drivers can see none of them!

https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/driveway-danger...

[tstrimple]

This is one of the things I really like about driving a minivan. Excellent visibility compared to just about any other vehicle, including sedans. A combination of higher sitting position with larger windows and sloping hood really opens up sight lines. My son has a Mazda 2 and I hate driving that thing. Feels like the columns and ride height really kills visibility.

[anon7000]

100%. I have a Mazda cx-5. Visibility sucks looking left & right because the A frame is so thick.

My thought: demand a certain level of visibility from car manufacturers, and they can figure out how to design around it. Like, I must be able to look left and see the pedestrian 3 feet away from walking into my car. Blind spots like that in the front are ridiculous

[gs17]

And I got a CX-5 because the CX-50 has even worse visibility!

[HeyLaughingBoy]

How often do you come across kids sitting on the ground in a parking lot? If they want to make a point about visibility at least have them standing up.

[realo]

Well... if you just take 2 minutes to read the article, you will see that a mother killed her own son in the driveway.

That alone should be enough to get SUVs off the road, in my book.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Yup, and I still don't know how she was able to do that, knowing that he was there. If you know that you can't see well out of your vehicle, make sure the kids aren't anywhere near it when you're driving. Hell, when my kids were young, they weren't even allowed to be outside on the same side of the house that I was mowing.

[redeeman]

would your book also outlaw pools as some parents negligance have caused kids to fall in and drown?

[epistasis]

Not sure if you have kids but it's pretty terrifying to navigate through parking lots with toddlers. It's the most stressful part of my day, honestly. And yet what choice do I have in the US but to put up with it? Safer city planning is pretty much banned except for the most expensive places in the US.

[epistasis]

Fair point, I edited my comment to reflect it!

However I think your EV examples shows an important attitude about what types of vehicles can be regulated. EVs are fair game for regulation, oversize trucks and SUVs are not. That's an attitude not based on safety, but on societal priorities.

This two-class system extends even beyond safety regulations, into emissions regulations too. Trucks and oversize SUVs get a free-ride out of everybody else in society.

[njarboe]

Blame the chicken tax.

[usrusr]

I believe that it's more nuanced than that (this is from the context of German regulations):

In the old days, reflectors and diffractors were rather crude and light distribution wasn't even at all. Regulation was setting a light intensity limit for the arc above the cutoff, assuming that the brightest spots would be just that, unintended brightness outliers. And when those would comply with the limit, the typical brightness hitting the eyes of oncoming traffic would be much lower.

Now reflector design is SO much better manufacturers striving to make their buyers happy can make lights pushing out photons exactly at that old regulatory limit over the entire cutoff area, and with a precise jump where the cuttoff stops. That's awesome for the person behind the wheel ("best lights I ever had!"), technically within the old limits and a terribly blinding for everybody else.

[tomaskafka]

Yes, and solution to externalities is regulation.

[analog31]

Car headlights are regulated. My hunch is that the regulations are based on technical background that is not up to date with modern light sources including LEDs and HIDs.

Styling works against us too. The ability to control the geometry of the light beam improves with the size of the optics relative to the emitter, but people want a car with sexy little lights.

I designed optics for lighting in a past life, though never for an automotive application. This issue is actually on my radar because of the blinding brightness of bike lights on the local bike paths.

[culi]

The larger contrast of very bright lights can actually make visibility worse. In urban planning it's well known that having more smaller lights is always best for safety and visibility than having a few very powerful ones. I'm not sure how that can translate to car headlights but certainly we're all less safe when car headlights are blinding everyone and SUVs with comically tall bonnets are becoming the norm in the US

[dnemmers]

Do you have any sources you can share about sock thickness and ankle injuries?

[alamortsubite]

I think the problem is even worse because the mentality quickly extends from "more bright = more safe" to "drive faster."

[hackeraccount]

Yeah but more bright is more safe ... for me driving around with the light of a thousand suns coming out of the front of my care at night it seems pretty safe, "good luck everybody else".

[bluGill]

Often less bright is safer. Unless there are heavy clouds the moon (even a partial mood) is often bright enough that once my eyes adjust (which takes time!) I can see better without any lights at all. When my headlights are on I see really good in the space where the lights are, but beyond that I see nothing, when my headlights are often I can't see as well in that area, but I see much farther. I want everything that can to have lights so they are easier to see, but I can see a candle from miles away so this is minimal. With no lights at all I have better chances of seeing things that don't have lights in time to take action.