> 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.

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!

Some high-end cars use banks of lights all pointing in slightly different directions, and they autodim the lights pointing directly at headlights coming the other way.

EDIT - also:

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

To be fair, this is related to the cars people want to buy. Everyone's making SUVs because they sell like hot cakes.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Another one of those quirks of law that appears to be there to help avoid burdening the legendary smallholding farmer whose teenagers are hardworking farmhands towing around 8 head of cattle in the work truck, but which mostly just enables a bunch of idiots driving around surburbs in gleaming-clean four-door pickups that have never carried anything in the bed but a couple bikes or a little camping gear.

I'd be all for exemptions to any rules for anyone who proves ownership of a working farm or ranch but you can bet that no regulation of any kind will ever be enacted to curb the disaster that CAFE rules caused to "car" size.

I came from exactly that sort of community. The fact of the matter is that teen would have driven that truck regardless of the law permitting it.

IMO, this sort of thing should work more like the way fair use works. A cop could pull you over for a traffic violation, ticket you, and then when you go to court you push the defense of "I'm a farmer and I was doing farm work" to get the missing license charge dropped (but you'll still likely end up with a traffic ticket to pay).

Generally speaking, cops aren't patrolling farming roads anyways so you'd really not need almost any exemption in place.

Farmer's kids are already exempt from 99% of road and licensing requirements if they are on farm business. I was 12 years old driving around in an old truck without a license plate or license, sometimes hauling massive loads, and it was 100% legal because it was for the farm and my parents were farmers. And honestly there were far more dangerous tasks done on the farm than that so I don't see a real problem with it.

> you can bet that no regulation of any kind will ever be enacted to curb the disaster that CAFE rules caused to "car" size.

I'm not a big EV person, but afaik EVs don't have efficiency standards and so they don't have to conform to CAFE footprints, so we can get compact vehicles again, hopefully. Up to manufacturers to put them for sale, and people to actually buy them, of course.

Sure. But unfortunately the effect of stupid CAFE on the whole fleet nationwide has been so extreme that the 85% of cars that are still gas have grown to be enormous, so understandably no one feels safe driving a little Civic if they can afford at least a CR-V and ideally a 3-row SUV.

Plus, giant EVs have more room for batteries and most Americans think 300 miles of range is necessary even if they drive 20 miles a day and even if they can charge at home!

also people expect smaller cars to cost far less so they have far lower per-unit profits

> but afaik EVs don't have efficiency standards

This is a huge hole in the regulatory regime. It doesn't make sense to be as wasteful with electrons as we are with hydrocarbons. Sure the electron can be generated cleanly or with higher efficiency, but that doesn't negate the pursuit of encouraging increased utility.

Isn't this currently covered with range?

No? You can just make a 2 ton massive EV with a massive battery to get more range, ruining the roads more, using more resources to make that battery. Basically the Rivian model.

It's not necessarily height. Angle of the lamp impacts things as well.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's funny that you point out Japanese companies as the actually worthwhile minivans. You're not pointing out the shitwagons dumped out there by Ford, Dodge and Chevy that were the bulk of the market. I remember the Astrovans being especially bad. There was a lot of stumbling around by US makers switching over to things like fuel injections and electronic controls. A lot of this left some amount of consumer dislike to particular brand names. Then when you add that SUV/Crossovers started showing up when manufacturing of cars had improved greatly these new models were more apt to be considered quality it made a big difference.

What? I’m almost 40, and my whole life it has been common knowledge that American cars are of inferior quality compared to Japanese cars.

It makes no sense to buy a GM Suburban or Ford Expedition because you think a Stellantis Pacifica is low quality. The Japanese minivans have always been there for purchase, if you wanted a quality minivan.

People have been choosing to pay extra for bigger, taller cars because they want bigger, taller cars to signal ostentatious consumption, not any other reason. I’ve heard this direct from many, many people on why they chose an SUV or pickup truck over a minivan (though they will couch it in terms like “cool” or “sleek” or whatever).

i wonder if the incessant marketing from US auto companies had anything to do with this "desire". Why invest in more efficient engines, at lower profit margins, when you can convince your customers that their obese vehicles are all the protection they need.

There are very few countries where pedestrial fatalities have continued to rise, and the US and Canada are two of them, driven in large part by auto obesity.

You point to popularity, but I will mention that it is impossible to buy a sedan from US automakers today. The reason why is simple - profit. Larger cars are more profitable. When combined with incessant marketing that a pickup truck makes you more "manly", you can manufacture "desire" and "preference".

>but I will mention that it is impossible to buy a sedan from US automakers today

Toyota/Honda/Subaru/Mazda/Tesla/Volkswagen manufacture sedans made in the US, that you can buy today. Not sure why it would make a difference where it is made anyway.

If you wanted a lower priced sedan, you would choose from the 10+ great options, cheaper than a larger vehicle, and buy a sedan.

Which means if you paid more for a larger/higher vehicle, it is because you wanted the larger/higher vehicle.

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.

> you weren't in a short car, you were in a normal car

What's normal can change. Today, 37% of used registrations in the US are sedans and about 18% of new registrations.

yes, what is "normal" has been redefined to align with what is more profitable for the US auto companies. There is no real reason why most US drivers suddenly switched from sedans to large SUVs and bloody pickup trucks in the past 40 years. Except for profit.

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.

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.

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.

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.