Part of the problem I've identified are SUV's and Trucks. Back home I drive a 4runner so I never noticed this but on vacation one week and we rented a Corolla. While the lights from other cars never bothered me in the 4runner, it was so apparent in the smaller Corolla.

I would see light behind me and go "why do they have high beams on" but then looking ahead it didn't look like they had their high beams on, I was just in a short car.

▲

robertlagrant 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> but then looking ahead it didn't look like they had their high beams on, I was just in a short car.

You were in a normal car, and the SUV manufacturer has mounted the lights higher just for aesthetic reasons.

▲

switchbak 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You were in a normal car ... for 2004.

Now you're in a car that the US car industry doesn't want to sell, and thus you don't exist.

Do we need self-darkening HUDs? Like an LCD overlay that specifically mutes the intensity of these improperly engineered cars? Seems dumb, but it might happen.

I wonder if we'll just move to using IR for the really high beams? That probably doesn't do anything good to the human eye at high intensities, but if you could augment the driver's vision and not blind everyone at the same time that would be nice? Let's bring back the Cadillac Deville!

▲

adolph 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Seems like it would make sense to mandate a specific height for headlamps. I wonder why this hasn’t been done.

▲

toast0 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Edit: sorry, I shouldn't post US rules on a UK topic. For penance, a fact about lighting in the UK, reverse lights weren't required until 2009!

There are rules. FMVSS [1] says lower beam headlamps must be mounted between 55.9 cm and 137.2 cm above the ground, and upper beam headlamps must be mounted not less than 22 inches nor more than 54 inches. The height ranges match, but are specified in different units

But that's a big range.

These rules end up being the stick used to regulate vehicle lifts and lowering; you could lift a vehicle higher, or drop it lower but very few people will do the work to relocate the lights.

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/p... Table 1-A, seach in page for 'Expand Table' cause I couldn't find a good way to navigate.

▲

eldaisfish 3 hours ago | parent [-]

this is also my understanding. The range is large because it caters to passenger cars, lorries and construction equipment. Construction equipment is seen are more rugged (it often is) and this is now projected as a desirable trait for SUVs and pickup trucks.

The irony is that SUVs and pickup trucks do not need lights 137 cm above ground, but that height is perfectly legal in too many countries. These vehicles are a menace and should be legislated out of existence.

▲

toast0 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I will always champion the compact pickup truck. A 1980s S-10 or Toyota Truck (HiLux) can do light truck things, is relatively economical, and doesn't have a large footprint. Alas, nobody makes similar vehicles for US/Europe anymore --- kei trucks are still made for Japan, and less developed economies can get simple small trucks. Maybe some of the EV compact trucks will actually be made.

	▲	cogman10 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'd argue that compact trucks should be the only trucks that can be driven without special licensing. It's insane to me that I as a 16 year old was allowed to drive an F350 pulling a 40ft trailer on a standard license.

▲

vegancap 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah I'm in a really low Civic Type-R, so when I'm opposite some kind of SUV, and also at a slight angle, was basically at direct eye height with their LEDs. I definitely don't have the same problem with older bulb based SUVs though

	▲	Tade0 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I do, because in my corner of the world, before the advent of self-leveling headlights people would adjust them to whatever height they wanted.

▲

helterskelter 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Honestly the worst offenders for shooting the lights right in your eyes are the Jeep Wranglers. I drive a work truck on occasion and the Jeeps are about the only vehicle that still get me looking for the fog line. High intensity lights are still really annoying though, and my eyes are probably 7-8ft off the ground.

▲

psunavy03 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Wranglers are often lifted via the aftermarket, and I bet a lot of people who do that don't ever stop to consider whether the headlights need to be realigned after.

	▲	helterskelter 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My experience has been all Wranglers unless they have aftermarket "eyelids". I think their stock lights have zero angle and just blast straight ahead without pointing towards the ground. Most high intensity lights tend to point at the ground so you don't usually get it straight into your eyes.

▲

BobaFloutist 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's the worse for you driving a work truck. For people in shorter cars, the Wranglers might actually be above our sightlines, and the Dodge Ram tailgating us is among the worst.

▲

eldaisfish 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

you weren't in a short car, you were in a normal car. Society really needs legislation around auto obesity. Cars are too big, too high, too heavy, all at despite being less practical than a station wagon from twenty years back.

▲

paddy_m 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Blame the obama CAFE regulations that accounted for wheelbase and car volume, giving manufacturers lower fuel economy standards for larger cars. Then the CAFE standards that hold trucks/SUVs to a lower standard.

The economically efficient way to get the fuel economy result would have been to increase gasoline taxes, but that's a non starter politically. Higher gas prices would allow people to choose to keep a cheap gas guzzling truck/car, buy a new more efficient and expensive car, or buy a new slightly more efficient slightly more expensive car. It would have been simpler though and given consumers more choice.

▲

lotsofpulp 3 hours ago | parent [-]

While drastically higher gas prices would have been the proper solution, the CAFE standards did not incentivize people to buy larger/taller vehicles.

People’s desire to sit higher up and be in large vehicles, which have always been more expensive than smaller, lower vehicles, is what causes them to be bought. And once a significant portion have them, it becomes safer to be in one yourself, further incentivizing their purchase.

But 99% of the time, it’s just because people like the feeling of sitting higher up than others, and the ego boost from taking up more space. The simple evidence is the popularity of Suburbans/Sequoias/XC90s/etc over minivans, like Sienna/Odyssey. There is absolutely no functional benefit of the former over the latter, yet the former is more popular.

▲

pixl97 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

Minivans really did suck in comparison to most SUVs. The vast majority of them were underpowered, had electrical problem, and their insides fell apart rather quickly.

	▲	lotsofpulp 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I can't say I have experienced those issues between Odysseys and Siennas, but those are quality problems, nothing inherent to the concept of a minivan. I don't believe a minivan is or was underpowered for 99% of people's needs, especially to move family in a 1 hour radius.

▲

Stranger43 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well either that or completely privatize the infrastructure needed to operate those cars like multi-lane roads and parking lots with no mandatory minimums for road width and parking lot size.