Analysis by Daniel Stern, DVN Editor-in-Chief
The New York Times ran an article last week under the headline, “Headlights Get New Attention as More Than a Car Design Flourish“.
The thesis, stated upfront, is that advances in technology from incandescent to halogen, then HID, and now LED haven’t made today’s headlamps necessarily better than old ones. This assertion is based on IIHS’ recently inaugurated headlamp ratings, and IIHS President Adrian Lund is quoted as saying “Aesthetic design, not road performance, has been controlling headlamps”. Further on in the article, the lamp-aim factors that increasingly strong evidence suggests are primary to effective headlamp performance are finally mentioned, along with a statement by Consumer Reports that headlamps have been “improved” since CR began testing. Not mentioned, though, is the direct conflict between what CR and what IIHS would consider an “improved” headlamp.
We already know (as demonstrated by Dr. M. Hamm at our last 2017 US workshop) that most headlamps aren’t aimed well and the US Federal standard doesn’t adequately specify how it should be done. We already know (per Hamm and Flannagan) that simply aiming headlamps correctly greatly improves their rating scores. If we had to choose advancing light source and optics technology or improving headlamp aim, one or the other and not both, it’s difficult to imagine any outcome other than a vast improvement in effective and cost-effective safety by focusing on improving the aim of new and existing cars’ headlamps. We needn’t (indeed, mustn’t) focus on one or the other; it’s apparent that regulators aren’t going to fix the aim problem, so it’s up to us. We’ll need new ideas and new approaches other than just meeting the demonstrably inadequate aim regulations in the lawbooks. Whether the New York Times hit the right notes in the right order is an exercise for the reader in accord with their own philosophy. But it certainly appears we’ve got our work cut out for us: aside from figuring out how to whip headlamp aim into shape, we’ve also got to figure out how to communicate our knowledge and the implications of our research effectively to the public, the press, and the regulators.
