It's too easy to get a driver's license, and motorists have too much freedom. automatic lights, speed governors, cell phone jammers: three technologies that have existed for a long time, are cheap and widespread, and should be standard in any vehicle. Airbags are, why isn't a 100 dollar device that prevents you from doing 120 in a 45 not?

by JTS on Nov 9, 2009 1:34 pm • link • report

I think that dashboard guages should only be illuminated if the headlights are on. Back when I used to drive, that's how it was in my car. If it was dark outside, I couldn't see my speedometer or other guages, so there was no way I could "forget" my lights weren't on.

These days, a lot of cars' guages are always lit. With streetlights, as long as the driver can see the road, they might not realize their lights are out.

by Matt Johnson on Nov 9, 2009 1:40 pm • link • report

Leaving the lights off is a classic sign of a drunk driver.

by BeyondDC on Nov 9, 2009 2:09 pm • link • report

Part of the problem might actually be that Arlington's street are well lit. I've noticed that when areas are very well lit, drivers can end up driving around without realizing that their lights aren't on. Which of course makes you wonder, how much of a problem is this really if the street lighting is bright enough that everyone can actually see each other. Maybe that's why the cop laughed off Reader Collin ... (not that it was the right thing for the cop to do.)

by Lance on Nov 9, 2009 2:12 pm • link • report

doesn't an x5 have daytime running lights -- and it take a degree of conscious effort to turn them off.

And it is very easy to drive around parts of arlington (those with streetlights) with your lights off and not notice.

There were some studies done that suggested the time shift was a bad idea b/c an increase in accidents. More kids on the road in the morning maybe?

by chARlie on Nov 9, 2009 2:13 pm • link • report

My dash doesn't light up unless headlights are on. I didn't realize some cars didn't tie those two together. But I think it's still possible to forget.

When I was in Ontario this past summer, I noticed most cars have headlights (not just running lights) on in daylight. I asked my friend, and he said that newer cars have their headlights on whenever the car is running (as per government reg).

by James M on Nov 9, 2009 2:14 pm • link • report

Matt Johnson is correct, and so is Lance.

Another issue is the adoption of "daytime running lamps" on many cars, whereby the headlights automatically come on at reduced illumination. Not as much of an issue to peds, because they can still see cars coming, but its an issue for drivers, because the tailights on cars with DRLs are off.

by spookiness on Nov 9, 2009 2:17 pm • link • report

Why blame the drivers when you can blame the car manufacturers? They've stuffed cars with safety features, but so far few cars have a simple light detector that switches the lights on when it's dark.

If that's too difficult, why don't the headlights go on whenever you start the car? Even during daylight it's safer to drive with lights on.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/argumnts.htm

by Jasper on Nov 9, 2009 2:25 pm • link • report

JTS - a governor as you describe it would be downright unacceptable to most customers. It implies that the government knows where you are and what the speed limit is there at the moment. A more achievable goal would be a simple government restriction like electronically limited 99mph maximum speed on all normally-licensed new cars, at all times.

To Collin - I think you're imagining that daylight savings had any effect. In a truly well-lit urban environment they're really not for the driver's benefit, but so that everyone can see the driver. While I always have my lights on 'auto', those who use manual sometimes forget this for a while in situations where it's possible to navigate by streetlamp. Usually this only lasts a few seconds until they remember, which may be why while it scares the hell out of me personally, responses to it seem to vary all the way to this "Oh! He forgot to tie his shoelaces! :)" approach.

by Squalish on Nov 9, 2009 2:26 pm • link • report

1) I think the primary problem is that most streets around here are pretty well lit, so you don't notice the absence of headlights. Add to that the automatic headlights many people have and you're not forced to think about turning them on. Worse, you're not forced to think about turning them off, since automatic or not most cars turn them off when you get out. So people are just less aware. Not that any of this is an excuse.

2) I haven't seen dashes that are lit without at least some level of lights on. Of course, what I see around here are people driving with just the parking lights on, which is usually enough to light the dash. They of course don't realize that their full lights are not on.
3) On most BMWs having daytime running lights activated is an option that you can choose.

by ah on Nov 9, 2009 2:27 pm • link • report

Maybe automatic lights?

by Mark on Nov 9, 2009 2:31 pm • link • report

It would appear that USDOT was dead-set against DRL's (which are desirable for carmakers looking to standardize parts with markets that require them) because of glare issues. Since they first allowed them, more and more carmakers use them. USDOT & citizen complaints about glare have been exacerbated by the extremely bright levels we see here for cost-cutting reasons. Carmakers use much higher levels in the US than seen in Europe where they're more interested in regulating this sort of thing without the help of lobbyists.

by Squalish on Nov 9, 2009 2:37 pm • link • report

@Squalish: Yes, you are right. It is a device that limits the ability of an engine to go as fast as it is capable of going. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(device)

I said the 120 in a 45 as hyperbole; I am realistic and don't expect consumers or the idiots they elect to get behind requiring automakers to install a device that synched with speed limits. I would advocate for a national speed limit with a governor that allows for 10 mph faster than that.

by JTS on Nov 9, 2009 2:43 pm • link • report

My 2000 Maxima has a great feature of auto-lights. I leave it in auto, it goes on when it gets dark and goes off when it gets light. It is extremely useful. It also can be 'on' or 'off' as well, which I do when it's raining, etc. My parent's accord, on the other hand, does have a slightly lit dash under all circumstances and has a separate light indicator for "lights on" - very easy to see when they are on or off via that.

by Aaron on Nov 9, 2009 3:02 pm • link • report

In re: the X5. I'm pretty sure that all (newer) BMW's have the auto headlights standard. Problem is it has to be shifted into "Auto Mode" and for some strange reason they sometimes move into "off" mode. If you drive on Auto all the time and it moves to off it sometimes takes a while to notice, especially on well lit city streets. This all being said, I think the running lamps should have been on...

by Local on Nov 9, 2009 3:11 pm • link • report

My subaru doesn't have an auto-feature, but it does have DRL's. Most cars do these days. One thing that some people forget about is the backlit illumination brightness level of the dash. If it's not set high enough, there's not much a discernible difference between when the lights are on or off in a well-lit nighttime environment. Most people get used to the settings in their car, but I think it could be a source of some confusion.

One of the big perks about DRL's is that in the past people used to forget about having their lights on when it's raining even if it's in bright sunlight.

I think it's more of a coincidence that drivers in Arlington are seemingly having a hard time adjusting to daylights savings time.

I don't know which intersection in Ballston you're talking about Collin, but if it's near the Gold's Gym on Wilson and Pollard, than I agree it's a dangerous intersection at night and at dusk. That strip on Wilson is not well-lit and it's pretty busy and has a good number of pedestrians.

Honestly, people just need some common sense. DST isn't a reason to be unaware of the environment. On the flip side, I hate seeing people at like 8:30 pm when during the early summer when the days are long w/ no lights on when they should IMO.

by Vik on Nov 9, 2009 3:27 pm • link • report

I drove a Volvo once.

It had three settings

0 - parking - on

0 was an auto setting though. if it was dark outside, the lights came on anyway. i thought that was kind of odd

by ffav on Nov 9, 2009 3:28 pm • link • report

Regarding the dashboard lights, those almost always come on even with just the parking lights enabled. A person could easily think they'd turned their lights on, but hadn't actually gotten the switch turned far enough so they'd be driving around with just parking lights.

by Sean Robertson on Nov 9, 2009 3:38 pm • link • report

I almost pulled out in front of some heifer who was driving with no lights on.

by Abolhassan Banisadr on Nov 9, 2009 4:30 pm • link • report

ffav — Volvos are a little unusual in that the parking lights and headlights are on regardless of the position of the switch. This is for reasons: one, It’s a safety issue, and two, Arctic countries mandate use of DRLs in certain seasons or year-round.

JTS — You’ll put a GPS-linked governor in my car over my cold, dead body. And it’s not that I speed excessively; it’s that such Big Brother tactics are disturbing, and, frankly, revolting. Also, speed limits aren’t the answer; driver’s education and extremely strict tests are, à la Germany. Your method just reinforces the nanny-state-induced stupidity that already plagues much of the residents of this country.

by Don Incognito two on Nov 9, 2009 5:49 pm • link • report

While I appreciate your selective reading of my comment, I'll reiterate that all I'm saying is that you aren't given an option to have airbags in your car because its safer, so why should you be given the option to speed excessively? I never said anything about GPS or tracking or anything. I said, simply, force cars to go slower. Traceability was all you. Fortunately we agree on the need for significantly tighter restrictions on licensing (which, as I'm sure some would argue, is another type of soft paternalism).

And as an aside, the vast majority of Americans already carry tractable GPS devices on their person at all times. They are called - perhaps euphemistically to the Orwell crowd - cell phones. My question is this: at what point does society relinquish anonymity in the name of public safety? I'm not saying that I advocate it, but I would venture to guess that if ~40,000 Americans died annually as the result of direct acts of terrorism instead of on highways, many would be a lot quicker to embrace such technologies.

by JTS on Nov 9, 2009 6:57 pm • link • report

I live in Arlington and have noticed the same thing. I believe that many people in Arlington park their cars in well lit underground garages. When they start their cars in the garage there isn't a need for extra light and when they reach the well lit streets it doesn't occur to them that something is off. Automatic lights would help with this.

by craig on Nov 9, 2009 7:01 pm • link • report

GPS-linked or not, you are limiting the automobile based on an arbitrary number, which, in many places, is set too low as it is. It’s still Big Brother tactics, whether you use GPS or whether the car communicates with some beacon on the side of the road. Furthermore, there are occasions when extra speed is needed — I would not want to have my car’s power artificially constrained in an emergency situation because some bureaucrat decided what the safe speed is.

Driver skills vary widely; your tactic reduces all drivers to the lowest common denominator — the ignorant, imbecilic, eating-with-one-hand-and-tuning-the-radio-with-the-other American driver who thinks driving is a right and not a privilege. Such people need to be kept from driving or strenuously educated; don’t force the skilled driving public to suffer the same constraints as the worst drivers on the road. Furthermore, enforcement needs to be broader than speed limits and extend to poor driving practices—driving slow in the left lane, distracted driving of all kind, etc—that present much more of a hazard than a skilled driver driving over what you determine to be a reasonable speed. Again, I look to Germany as the example to be followed—a much lower death rate than in the US, despite no speed limits, due to strict licensing, education and enforcement.

by Don Incognito on Nov 9, 2009 7:30 pm • link • report

To clarify, the Big Brother comment wasn’t regarding the fact that one would be able to be tracked or traced—a GPS receiver isn’t necessarily traceable—so your comment about anonymity is moot. Rather, it was regarding overprotective nanny government policies designed to lower standards, as opposed to education and demands for higher standards.

by Don Incognito on Nov 9, 2009 7:43 pm • link • report

Don Incognito - Could you get behind a national maximum 99mph governed speed limit for normally-licensed new cars, given that 80mph is the maximum legal speed in any US state? I'm assuming some sort of tightly regulated disabling process for legally sanctioned racing.

I'm not sure I see any downside, and I see plausible benefits in discouraging street racing.

by Squalish on Nov 9, 2009 10:32 pm • link • report

Squalish—
I can get behind a national speed limit of 99 mph due to the fact that it would be above the 85th percentile of traffic speed for any highway I can think of. But built-in electronic limiters? I’m not so sure. 99 mph is well within the means of most modern cars, especially on the high end. Most of the low end can’t go that fast anyway.

I don’t want to make it sound like I am a reckless speeder, as I am not; I live in Arlington and work in Alexandria, and the road design does not lend itself to “comfortable” driving—the principle that drivers will drive whatever speed they’re comfortable with has been discussed on this blog. The point is that I prefer such a “natural” enforcement of a speed limit, rather than an electronically limited, one-size-fits-all means. Moreover, electronic enforcement won’t deter street racing, as all electronics will—necessarily—be hacked, and besides, street racing is dangerous no matter what the top speed is.

I could get behind electronic limiters if they were graduated, much like driving restrictions on young drivers are in some states. That is, for an advancement of one’s maximum limit they would have to undergo progressively difficult—and progressively expensive—driving examinations.

by Don Incognito on Nov 10, 2009 12:06 am • link • report

RE: Don Incognito --- speeding is not a safety tactic. Accidents are avoided by giving everyone more time, not less. The whole issue of hypothetical speeding for some emergency is a bit overblown Hollywood drama — for something like crash avoidance when compared to the potential safety benefits of “intelligent speed adaptation” — or devices that limit speeds according to the posted speed of the road (imagine that!).

The location of almost every car on the road is already traceable via. cellphone tower and GPS signal triangulation - such coordinates could be cross-referenced with speed limit maps in a computer database and could be then modified based on weather, traffic conditions ahead, etc.

Anyhow, air drag is the square of speed, so fuel efficiency drops off a cliff anywhere over 50/55 mph. Generally the time people choose to leave is governed by the maximum speed they will be able to travel - so if speeds are governed people will simply leave earlier to compensate. The prospect of speeding simply causes people to procrastinate before leaving on their trip - they then waste more gas than necessary and take out their rage on everyone else if there is any unexpected delay in their ability to speed.

Braking is typically just as valid a response as speeding, with the added value of lower-speed impacts, more time to make decisions, vastly shorter stopping distances, less likely to overdrive sight-lines, etc.

by Lee Watkins on Nov 10, 2009 8:51 am • link • report

Squalish,

Just one of many potential counterarguments: a lot of us do participate in track events. Which are referred to as DE (driver education) events because, until one becomes practiced and decides to engage in a separate set of events, they are un-timed and truly are about improving driving skills. Who is to decide what is "legally sanctioned"? Do I want to rely on my car's GPS for it to know that I'm on a track? What if a new track is built, and my GPS is no longer updated (I already have that problem in my current car.. my maps are 10 years old, and let me tell you how useless that is in the suburbian hell that is Ashburn, among many other places in the DC Metro area).

Plus, if there's a way to disable it for legitimate purposes, there's a way to disable it for illegitimate purposes...

As for the OP, though, I think he has a point - I see this frequently, and live in Arlington. I hope things will improve as the "Auto" setting for lights becomes more and more common. One of my annoyances, though, is drivers who use fog lights. So many of them do, particularly SUV drivers. There are very good reasons why it is illegal to use them when it isn't foggy out in most states, but this is lost on most drivers...

by J on Nov 10, 2009 8:57 am • link • report

I borrowed a new Ford coupe the other day, and the computer on it beeped loudly every time I switched the lights from auto/off to always ON - it was annoying enough that I never wanted to switch the lights on ever again and just leave it on auto... of course the AUTO setting doesn't always turn on if there are street lights, and the dash was always lit so you couldn't tell if the lights were on or not.

By contrast in my older European car, the dash lights are only on when the headlights are on, so you can't see anything without the headlights - thus you actually think about turning it on. Also there is no annoying beep-alert to dissuade you from utilizing the switch. Also there are wipers on the headlights themselves, which I make great use of, especially in winter. I refuse to by any new car that doesn't have headlight wipers. Also I refuse to buy a car that doesn't have 10mph+ shock-absorbing bumpers (found on 80's Merc/BMW/Volvo, which have prevented damage to my car more times than I can count - I've been rear-ended 3 times with no damage, and also parallel park in the city every day). The new 2 1/2 mph bumpers will cost you thousands even at parking speeds... why would I want that? Plus you have to get out of the car to clean your headlights, and you will probably forget to turn them on.

by Lee Watkins on Nov 10, 2009 9:24 am • link • report

To give the guy the benefit of the doubt...there is the possibility that the driver had recently left a garage and because of the ambient lighting in the garage overlooked turning them on. The garage in my office building is very well lit and there have been times when I've exited the garage without my headlights on only to realize it when I'm several blocks away. It wasn't intentional but it happened.

by KK on Nov 10, 2009 9:27 am • link • report

Lee Watkins— It is not for you or some government bureaucrat to decide what is an appropriate “safety tactic” for any given situation; nor is it for you to prevent me from driving above what you determine to be an “appropriate” speed in any situation. Again, you are substituting a bright-line government regulation for the reason of individual drivers. You may be comfortable with that; I am not.

“Posted” speed limits are an asinine way to regulate traffic speed, as, again, drivers will drive the speed that they are comfortable at. That is why speed limits should be set at an 85%-ile traffic speed, and not by politically and financially-motivated forces.

Third, accident avoidance depends on all the driver skills involved, not a simple, supposedly axiomatic statement such as “giving people more time.” Again, data from other countries shows that speed is not necessarily related to fatalities per miles traveled.

Again, if you want to limit every driving citizen to a government-determined lowest common denominator, thatÂ’s your opinion. I prefer a more meritocratic, pro-individual-intelligence system of addressing problems on our roads. Not to mention a well-developed transit network to get more commuters off the roads.

by Don Incognito on Nov 10, 2009 9:44 am • link • report

Although, to be fair, the original topic of this thread doesnÂ’t leave much hope for driver intelligence. But thatÂ’s why I think graduated licensing is the way to go.

by Don Incognito on Nov 10, 2009 9:45 am • link • report

I have also noticed this although I hardly think it is limited to Arlington. And it has nothing to do with the time switch. People don't turn on their lights based on what time of day it is.

Why does it happen? I guess car technologies probably have something to do with it. If your dash lights are on, then you can drive around in an urban area for quite a while before realizing your lights are off. Dash lights should definitely only go on if the lights are on. And brightly lit streets probably has something to do with it, although again, if your dash lights are off, you're gonna notice even if it is bright outside the car. Or at least I THINK you should notice. The shiny electronic device in your hand may distract you.

But I think we should not ignore the possibility that it is dumb and / or inexperienced drivers. Someone else pointed out how easy it is to get a license. We have a large percentage of immigrants in Arlington, I suspect many who are driving for the first time and may not have a good understanding of how to operate a vehicle in a safe and considerate manner. A car without its lights on is unsafe for the driver, but probably more unsafe for those around it.

I have also noticed a seeming degradation in the responsiveness of drivers to emergency vehicles. It is as if no one knows how to pull over. I had a chance to ask an Arlington fireman about this recently and he explained that the DMV no longer teaches new drivers to pull over to the right, they simply say "yield" to fire trucks, ambulances, etc. You rarely see anyone pull over to the right these days and when you do, they're usually above a certain age.

I still remember my 40 hours in driver's ed and 40 more hours (or was it 80?) in driver's training. Over and over we were taught things like: when can you pull out into traffic? when you won't make anyone put on their brakes. This is apparently not being taught any more. I can't count the number of times that someone has stopped, seen me, and then seemingly waited until I was closer to then pull out, slowly, in front of me. At the risk of seeming bigoted, I will further point out that these people almost always appear to be new to the country.

by Josh S on Nov 10, 2009 10:59 am • link • report

Limiting speeds to some arbitrarily number based on politics more than reality is not the solution and wouldn't work anyway as the governors (just like every other technological device that has been tried to arbitrarily regulate people's behavior in the past) will be quickly hacked (look in the back of any car magazine and you will say ads for numerous devices to reprogram your ECU to increase performance at the expense of emissions and efficiency and then tell me the same companies won't find a way to disable speed governors.) What we needs is to stop giving licenses to people who simply don't know how to drive. Instead of graduated licensing based on age but still usually tested only on the ability to perform a few rote maneuvers (which is all that has been proposed) lets require drivers to demonstrate the ability to safely operate the type of vehicle they want a license for under the type of conditions they would typically drive under.

by Jacob on Nov 10, 2009 12:52 pm • link • report