It could make sense. We don't know the numbers.

Let's say net X lives are saved each year because of automatic lights turning on.

Let's say net Y lives would be saved each year without automatic lights, via more effective detection of drunk drivers and stopping them before they kill someone.

Is X > Y? We don't know.

> Eliminatung DUI is not a matter of detection

There are a lot of avenues to decrease DUI, among which one is effective detection combined with enforcement.

▲

smcleod 8 months ago | parent | next [-]

The EU has done lots of reach on road and car safety, there's lots of data out there - just perhaps not in the US as many American made cars have significantly lagged behind in terms of safety features.

▲

throwawat19r83 8 months ago | parent | next [-]

I don't know if it's an EU rule, but in my (European) country cars are required to have their lights on at all times, even during the day. The lights switch on automatically when you start the car

▲

chuckadams 8 months ago | parent | next [-]

I'm baffled that daytime running lights are not mandatory on all models of all cars in 2025. My 13 year old Grand Caravan has them, though I suspect it's because it comes from the Daimler Chrysler era.

	▲	potato3732842 8 months ago \| parent [-]
		I love to baselessly praise europe as much as the next idiot in the comments but most North American models that got DRLs before it was legally required got them because they've been required in Canada since the 90s

▲

froindt 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

After I visited Iceland where it's mandatory, I liked the improved visibility so much I turn my lights on for every single trip. It was not a takeaway I was expecting to have from the trip.

▲

SideburnsOfDoom 8 months ago | parent | prev [-]

It's a good idea in some places. An overcast winter's day in the North isn't that well lit by default.

▲

margalabargala 8 months ago | parent | prev [-]

The EU also is far more strict on DUIs.

▲

the_gipsy 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Okay, let's compare it to: Let's not make auto-pilot mandatory in planes, because sometimes a copilot has found that a pilot was drunk when taking off manually.

Even if there was a drunken pilot epidemic that causes 10 plane crashes per year, and autopilot only prevents 1 plane crash per year, it would be ridiculous not to make the autopilot mandatory and rely on its absence to catch some of those drunken pilot crashes.

▲

margalabargala 8 months ago | parent [-]

I don't agree. Why would that be ridiculous?

In the example you give, if the copilot catches the pilot more than 10% of the time, then the swap to mandatory autopilot kills more people than not doing it.

I hardly think it would be ridiculous to want to save more lives.

	▲	the_gipsy 8 months ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲

cma 8 months ago | parent | prev [-]

There may be something like that that does make it counterintuitive. Usually those kind of Malcom Gladwell paradoxes end up overstated.

There would be other factors, like drunk people are probably safer with their lights on too. Lane keeping probably makes it harder to detect drunk drivers too but also may make them safer.