MODERN MOTORISTS ARE BLINDED BY PROGRESS
You’re not imagining it. Headlights are, indeed, getting stronger. According to some people, so strong that they can be blinding. The problem seems to be that the automotive industry is over-delivering on a selling feature. Currently, there’s a big disconnect between visibility and disabling glare.
Just how strong are some of these new headlights? Mercedes-benz brought out an ad last year showcasing its new Intelligent Light System, which it claims has a 60 per cent increase in road visibility. If the images are to be believed, these new headlights offer X-ray light clarity, strong enough to show the skeletons of cows and deer on the road. Now, imagine having those beams reflecting off of your rear-view mirror on a dark and stormy night.
Statistics show that half of road fatalities take place after dark, which is especially noteworthy when you consider that only 20 per cent of people are driving at night. Improvements in visibility ought to be a wonderful development in offsetting these accidents. Unfortunately, this isn’t proving to be the case.
Let’s begin with a short history of the headlight: The birth of the automobile is considered to have been 1886, when Carl Benz took out a patent on a “vehicle powered by a gasoline engine.” In 1896, Henry Ford introduced the Quadricycle, his version of the automobile. The first “cars” had rather feeble “motor lamps” that didn’t so much illuminate the road as much as provide running lights for the vehicle. Around about 1908, something we would recognize as headlights became a standard feature on automobiles. Shortly thereafter, the function and efficacy of these carbon-bulb headlights became regulated. In the 1960s, Italian automakers introduced halogen lights, their lumen output enhanced with bromide and iodine for a brighter glow. In the intervening years, we’ve seen the lumen output on headlights creep up into the range of 1,300 to, 1,600 lumens. High-intensity discharge lights augmented with xenon register at around 3,000 lumens. The really big guns, however, are the new laser headlights. Yes, lasers. On the lumen scale, these overachievers register at around 6,400. Online inquiries indicate that when brightness of direct or reflected light reaches 4,000 lumens, the human eye starts to protect itself, meaning wincing, squinting and the like.
Let’s align those numbers with how your eyes work. The old tungsten light bulbs produce a relatively benign yellow light.
The newer LED and xenon headlights create a whiter, or blue-ish, light that the eye perceives as brighter. When driving at night, your pupil is dilated to take in as much light as possible. The sudden appearance of excessively strong oncoming headlights results in a rapid shuttering of the pupil. This constriction can result in momentary pain as well as a diminishment of visual acuity. What’s happening in that moment is called photo retinal bleaching. The receptors at the back of the eye are overcome by the intensity of the light and it takes a few moments for them to reset. How big is this problem? The U.K. has already commissioned an inquiry into whether these new headlights are actually reducing road safety rather than enhancing it.
In the meantime, ophthalmologists and road safety experts are recommending you ensure your glasses, windshields and headlights themselves are cleaned to reduce additional glare. Unfortunately, there are no quick fixes for disabling glare other than the old standby tip of fixing your eyes on the right side of the road as a guide.
Jane Macdougall is a freelance writer and former National Post columnist who lives in Vancouver. She writes The Bookless Club every Saturday online and in The Vancouver Sun. For more of what Jane’s up to, check out her website, janemacdougall.com
THIS WEEK’S QUESTION FOR READERS: Is night driving made worse by the new headlights?
Send your answers by email text, not an attachment, in 100 words or less, along with your full name to Jane at thebooklessclub@gmail.com. We will print some next week in this space.
RESPONSES TO LAST WEEK’S QUESTION:
What are some gems from your own “familects?”
■ Everyone calls me Chi-chi. I was never sure where it came from, and my parents couldn’t really say when it started. At school, I was Elinor, my proper name. One day, a good friend, who only knew me at school, called up our house and when my dad answered she asked for Elinor. My dad told her she had the wrong number and hung up. When I married, the minister used Chi-chi.
An example of “familect” in our household is when our youngest child started calling serrated knives “grins,” for no apparent reason. I have always advised new parents to keep a notebook handy for when their children start to speak. Ours is full of words, phrases and stories of what all three said — a lot of it is “familect.” They are all in their 30s now, but the book is still occasionally pulled out and laughed and reminisced over.
Chi-chi Rasmusens
■ We moved from Quebec to North Vancouver in the early 1960s and lived on what was once a farm and is now part of Murdo Frazer Park. There was Mackay Creek running through the property and acres to run around in. Swamps and skunk cabbage to play in. Five kids and all their friends from Pemberton Heights had great times there. Now, when the family gets together and someone says the words 26th, or 26th Street, no more words are needed. We are all there again.
Rod Coleman
■ My wife, when she wants a topup of coffee or wine, will always say, “Just a KERSHMIGGLELTY please!” meaning, “Just a little please.”
Hans Sortti
■ We weren’t kids anymore, but our mother never failed to refer to Colonel Tuckey when she had takeout in mind. And my brother invariably added, “And his sanforized chicken.”
George Mosley