Why are “being-seen” conditions defined as directly adjacent to “seeing” conditions and its subsets on the laxness/strictness spectrum? A driver could theoretically choose to deactivate lights early in the morning (upon the environment becoming clearly visible), when no longer required strictly for seeing, and reactivate them later (several degrees of post-sunrise solar elevation) anew, when the rising sun’s glare necessitates their usage for being seen by others. The current arrangement of conditions does not allow for a “gap” between seeing and being-seen conditions.
While a compelling argument, hardly any real-world drivers behave this way. When someone deems that “it’s lights-off-time”, they are unlikely to switch them back on, unless the environmental conditions deteriorate. Changing that would render our model more rational, but less realistic.
Why are “being-seen” conditions defined as directly adjacent to “seeing” conditions and its subsets on the laxness/strictness spectrum? A driver could theoretically choose to deactivate lights early in the morning (upon the environment becoming clearly visible), when no longer required strictly for seeing, and reactivate them later (several degrees of post-sunrise solar elevation) anew, when the rising sun’s glare necessitates their usage for being seen by others. The current arrangement of conditions does not allow for a “gap” between seeing and being-seen conditions.
While a compelling argument, hardly any real-world drivers behave this way. When someone deems that “it’s lights-off-time”, they are unlikely to switch them back on, unless the environmental conditions deteriorate. Changing that would render our model more rational, but less realistic.