The more I think on this, the more I wonder if it’s truly unpopular “here,” but it certainly is in public.
Headlights should be no more than 2 feet off the ground. Yes, your SUV will look dumb. No, you won’t be able to see as far. But you also won’t be blinding everyone.
And no, adjusting angles does not solve this for monster trucks in the US.
I think you should need a unique license, determined by purpose and usage, to own an SUV in the first place and all crossover models should be sent into the sun.
It’s wild that I need to ask the state permission to fish but not for permission to own a uselessly oversized vehicle that doesn’t even increase cabin or cargo space versus smaller vehicles and creates more dangerous road conditions by design.
Edit: furthermore, anyone responsible for the touch screen disaster in the Ford Edge should be persecuted to the fullest extent with prejudice under this new law.
furthermore, anyone responsible for the touch screen disaster in the Ford Edge should be persecuted to the fullest extent with prejudice under this new law.
The most correct answers on this are Apple (Steve Jobs) and Tesla (Elon Musk) for pushing the idea of touchscreen everything. Although an honorable mention goes to federal safety regulators who saw no problem with taking your eyes and mind off of the road for basic driver-controlled functions like changing the radio station or adjusting the temperature.
Because of freedom, I prefer punitive taxation of large vehicles like SUV unless associated with a documented need for a vehicle of that capacity.
Why a tax instead of a ban?
“Sure, you can have this dangerous, child-crushing, planet destroying machine that externalizes most of its costs to society, and you can use it in public and be a dick with it, but only if you are rich.”
I just feel taxation is a better mechanism to change behavior than outright bans. Both are authoritarian solutions but optional taxes that can be avoided are less so. I favor these solutions over bans for the same reasons I prefer harm-reduction tax-and-regulate schemes over drug prohibitions.
In addition the tax money can be earmarked to do some good, perhaps rebate programs to encourage right-sized vehicle purchases.
As an example, extra taxes on sugary sodas reduce consumption most places they have been tried.
Recent study on sugar taxes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9161017/
Cigarette taxes work too: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/
I dislike the tax idea because it makes it available to the rich without needing a purpose. Taxes are only punitive to the poor. The wealthy should have fewer rights than the underprivileged.
Edit: I think one could suggest a scaling tax based on income, but I don’t think this adequately addresses the problem. The purchasing power of a single dollar doesn’t scale for income, so the wealthy still benefit from this arrangement even if they have to pay more.
What if taxes or fines were tied to personal wealth rather than a nominal flat fee?
I know there are some European countries that tie fines to annual income. That would do better at equalizing the effects of undesirable behavior regardless of wealth. If a parking ticket or speeding ticket or excessively polluting vehicle is going to cost a wealthy person tens of thousands of dollars extra, maybe they’ll find a more suitable and community-centric behavior.
You still have to get past the upper class tricks of driving “income” down by taking out loans to live off of, but that’s another conversation… maybe tie it to net wealth and make the wealthy sell stocks to pay the fines…
I think that’s more closer to fair, and generally I agree, but I believe my edit addresses this concept somewhat and you make a good note about upper class income tricks, though I understand that’ll happen regardless in a myriad of situations outside of this hypothetically SUV law/tax.
The Don’t Tread On Me crowd does not enjoy being regulated
even inside their own minds.Regulating OTHERS, now THAT’s a different story, but they will fight HARD to prevent any such common-sense measure, regardless of “saving lives” or other such benefits.
This country (I’m guessing you meant USA b/c of the context, though still applies to other similar ones too:-P) is so broken… on the other hand, more could be done about this at a local level, if you happen to be surrounded by other like-minded individuals who do not regard it as “nonsense” and want to see meaningful changes in your area.
On the other hand, unless where you live is extremely powerful such as the state of California, most such local changes would run into a huge problem with enforcement, making it extremely difficult to enact any meaningful changes on the smaller scale.
Don’t forget the piercing blue lights.
I completely agree, the headlights on a huge truck should be no higher than those on an economy car. You want them to shine down the road as far as possible at a shallow angle without shining in anyone’s eyes. All vehicles would have the same relative headlight range, there is no reason just because the cab is higher the lights need to be higher too.
there is no reason just because the cab is higher the lights need to be higher too.
That’s actually untrue. Retroreflective signs, clothing, and markings need the light to be emitted as close as possible to the driver’s eyeline. The further the lights are from the driver’s eyeline, the less they reflect back to the driver’s eyes.
Lowering the headlights from a large, commercial truck down to the height of a sedan would create far more danger than it cures.
Lowering the headlights from a large, commercial truck down to the height of a sedan would create far more danger than it cures.
Well speaking of commercial trucks, tractor-trailers aren’t the issue with bright headlights to me, their headlights are fairly low for the most part. It’s the bro-dozers and SUVs mostly.
Interesting, this is the first valid argument I’ve heard. Lower seating height, too, then! Hah
I suspect the signs work in a range of angles and it would be fine with headlights and drivers at various positions, but yeah it should be considered.
Height is fine, pitch and brightness are the reason for the blinding effect.
Which in some states is regulated, but not always enforced. Problem is a lot of people replace their standard bulbs with high intensity ones without changing the bulb housing. HID bulbs don’t need the reflectors of a traditional housing and need to be angled differently. But people would rather spend $50 on bulbs alone than the $200-300 to do it properly with new housing.
I just turn my brights on at those people. I want to see where I’m going too. If you turn your brights off and the dims are barely any better then my brights stay on. Either fix your shit or get off the road.
This is false. In most vehicles, defined proper headlight alignment creates a beam that is flat, parallel to the road with the spillover hitting the road. With proper alignment, height matters.
Example: https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/54c8125de1015-headlights-07-0511-de-1537997271.jpg
Ive started angling my mirrors away from my face to combat this and then changing them back when i get some distance. Bonus points if you can angle them back at the offending driver.
This is the way. The feeling when Jimbob the Confederate Cousinfucker’s lifted COMPENSATORMOBILE suddenly falls back due to his own misaligned and blinding headlights…
My 13 year old car has auto dimming rear and side views, but they don’t help with head on traffic. :(
My old audi had them and i miss them so much and i cant even get an aftermarket version. Fucking sucks and they should be stock.
In my state headlight height IS mandated.
Envy. What state? That being said, if it’s one of the “below 54 inches”, or even worse 72, what’s the point?
Florida. It is exactly that.
Statute 316.220 Summary: Two headlights between 24 and 54 inches from center of lamp to the ground.
I always thought the main beams should be where fog lights are located on big trucks. Keep the normal looking headlights in the same place but only have the turn signals and running lights there to keep the truck normal looking.
I agree.
I don’t disagree, but your estimate on what height they should be is off. Most car headlights are over 2ft off the ground. That’s actually the minimum height in most states, so 99% of cars are probably higher than 24 inches
All SUVs look dumb, I figured most people just accepted it as part of owning one.
Car buyers: “I don’t want a station wagon! They’re for old people!”
Car buyers: proceeds to buy an even bigger station wagon
Well I wanted a station wagon. Bring back the rumble seats and front bench seating!
I say ban headlights altogether. I have astigmatism so all headlights suck to some degree.
Related question: if I’m driving and am blinded by a SUV’s headlights being too high, am I morally allowed to turn on my high beams and blind them back?
Where is that reverse high beam button…
A .22lr?
(This is a joke)
deleted by creator
Headlight brightness and color temperature is what should be regulated. It’s only LED lights causing the extreme blinding effect.
This is false. Very, very false. Was true in the 90s, perhaps.
LED lights in the 90s? From which parallel universe are you from?
OK, slipped there, good catch. Pre-2010. Point still stands that every car released now has LED headlights, and they don’t all suck.
