I’d just like to take a moment to point out that my brand new Honda CR-V is certified as a LEV (Low Emissions Vehicle) and gets 28 MPG highway. That’s better than the 2000 small car that I replaced. Yep…Looks like I’m wrecking the environment…
Quar
No. My family is in the pool of SUV drivers. What this means according to your (well cited) figures is that they have a better survivability. The trade off is that they may inflict death upon other parties in an accident that would otherwise not occur because of their vehicle choice.
Ace:
If they drove a smaller car, than their survivability in an accident would be lower, and they would be at risk for unnecessary death by SUV.
The choice of vehicle swings your risk category pretty seriously.
According to your figures, if they get out of the Durango and into say, an Accord, they are no longer eligible to be one of those 1,900 whose lives are saved by driving an SUV. Even worse, they are now at risk to be one of the 2,400 that are killed by SUVs.
That 4,300 is statistically significant over the number of total vehicle fatalities per year, and represents a seriously higher level of risk for them.
As long as there are SUVs on the road, you are safer in one.
I fully realize that the increase in my families safety is not a fair trade off. I realize that their increase in safety comes at a higher cost in safety for everybody not in an SUV, and that ultimately it is a losing game for society as a whole, safetywise.
Nevertheless. I value my family more than everybody else. Maybe that sounds unreasonable to you, but I do.
As long as I am able to choose a higher safety level for my family, I most likely will. The fact that that comes at the cost of other people’s safety is regrettable. I have nothing against them. They make their own choices as well.
What you seem to be asking is if I am willing to place other people at higher risk in order to place my family at lower risk.
The answer is yes.
I am still willing to do it even if the trade off isn’t fair. I understand from your figures that my choice (and others like me) results in a net of 400 more deaths per year than would otherwise occur.
But, my family is safer, even if more people die. I make the choice.
I do so without apology, and with very little guilt. I suspect that the choice of vehicle for my family is only one factor that goes towards vehicular death statistics.
I believe that whether you drive aggresively, or over the speed limit, or whether you drive impaired has a much greater impact than your choice of vehicle.
My wife drives the speed limit (the truth is I don’t.) She doesn’t drink, at all. She obeys all safety laws. She doesn’t get road rage. She doesn’t weave in and out of traffic. She doesn’t pass on the right. She is a patient and nonagressive driver. She has never had an accident.
We also tend not to go out driving places on Friday nights or Saturday nights because statistically it is my understanding that their is a greater likelihood of vehicle fatality at this time, because there are a lot of impaired or impatient or tired drivers on the road.
I am quite confident, that big bad SUV and all, my wife’s presence on the road is a safe one, and that the risks she creates for other people are well below the mean.
In my head, all drivers fall into one of two categories: Those who have dice on their mirror, and those who don’t.
Of course, few people have dice on their mirror, so I’m being subjective, but I’m trying to describe a mindset.
Those people with dice (as I call it) are the people who have some kind of issue with their driving. Fast, reckless, aggressive, road rage, distracted, trying to have fun behind the wheel, or show off or impress themselves, or who are talking on a cell phone, or whatever, you get the picture; people driving with issues.
Those without dice represent people who do not have issues, those who are simply trying to get from one place to another as safely and conveniently as possible.
People with dice are fucking around with other people’s lives regardless of the vehicle they drive. People without dice are not.
There are lots of people out there with dice. I want my family in a tank so that if dice-drivers crash into our car, they die, not my family.
I would even venture to guess that dice-drivers are responsible for the majority of vehicular fatalities out there.
They don’t categorize easy since dice-drivers come in all varieties, so I doubt we’ll find any useful statistics.
That doesn’t mean that it’s not real.
So, I don’t feel guilty about or choice. Ultimately my wife’s safety conscioussness, and lack of issues, and driving record makes her presence on the road a much safer one than average, Durango and all.
Regarding those fake tickets- Johnny LA had a very amusing rant about them over on Fathom not too long ago.
They are pathetic and just show the worst side of the anti-SUV argument- that no-one gives a shit about why you drive it, you are just an asshole if you do. Which is a stupid argument and makes the arguer look like a moron.
Do I have to tow a horsetrailer to the fucking supermarket?!?
Quar, sarcasm not needed. I also have a CR-V. It’s considered a mini sport-ute and most SUV-bashers leave them (and the Toyota Rav4, and Subaru Forester, and so on) out of these arguments. They’re smaller, they’re fuel-efficient, etc.
I went out last night and bought me a brand-spanking new Explorer. Complete with the front shopping-cart-pusher/Civic Crusher/brush guard up front. All I could think about was this thread!
Scylla, I think you’ve eloquently stated the reason many people do things they wish they didn’t have to – to improve the lives of their families. I don’t fault you overly for that – I would do the same thing under similar circumstances.
In your shoes, I would buy a SUV for my family, even though I consider it selfish and jerkish, because protecting one’s family is primary. I’d also feel guilty as hell, that I’m willing to sacrifice the many for my few, to the point that I might lobby the government to ban SUVs so that no one would have to make such a socially destructive ethical choice. However, I would not defend the existence of SUVs, only my decision to own one.
Therefore, if anyone asked why I drive an SUV, I would say this:
And not this:
A lot of this probably comes from experience. I alternate driving and bicycling to work, and I’ve come to the conclusion that most drivers have no idea that there are bikes out there.
By the same token, I doubt that most SUV owners take much notice when their vehicles force a, say, Geo to move for them. What the hell…the SUV would “win” anyway, right? How many of 'em do you think ever had to commute in a little goddamn hatchback every day surrounded by Durangos, Blazers, and Escalades?
Re: the OP; I find the comparison between the old International and the current crop of SUVs absolutely comical. I’ve driven both, and most of the SUVs on the road today are completely disposable. The Ford Explorer should come in a big box with a coupon good for $0.25 off your next purchase. I’m waiting to see how many of these are on the road as long as my old beat-up Subaru was. Or even the old VW Bugs (much as they annoy me on principle).
The other thing that pisses me off is when people move to Colorado and assume that they have a choice between learning how to drive in the freakin’ snow, or just buying a 4x4. It doesn’t work that way!
My $0.02. Welcome to it.
I got out of this rant/debate when it became obvious it was a huge pissing contest - from both sides - as theses things almost always turn into. But good goddamm Ace -
This is just arrogant and unrealistic. While I would never knock anyone for trying, just how many minds do you think you’ve changed here? Again, I ask, just how much am I or the average person supposed to care about the safety of everyone else out there above our own? No matter who ‘won’ the debate, there will still be those same bothersome SUV’s out there the next time you hit the road.
All of the above is you saying what YOU would feel. Is it realistic to assume everyone else will feel exactly the same way? Will the little green aliens, once they’ve unearthed our cities millions of years from now, point to the Explorer as the downfall of human society? The crusade you seem to be on seems a little too grand, the conspiracy too great.
Its convenient to label your detractors as selfish, or even killers. It puts them in a damn near indefensible position. I’m glad I guess that I was trounced on the SDMB about what I drive. I’m glad for any intelligent conversation. But nothing said here is going to make me trade in my truck, and I’m sure I am not in the minority.
You make very valid points. I just can’t see what your ‘victory’ gets you.
“You’re a wasteful, SUV-driving, uncaring-about-the-lives-of-other-people, environment-killing, space-taking-up bastard!”
“And you’re an ugly bigot. But y’know, I could always decide to buy another car.”
If your opinion of me is based on the car I drive, then I don’t care what you think about me, my car, or anything else, because it’s obvious that you don’t have very good reasoning skills.
Dang, wish I’d said that.
You rule, **racinchikki **
From the second link posted by Ace. Good prose, not to mention the big honking pink elephant of truth in it. No, not the cheap shots. This part: once we all give in, there is no advantage. Then old Bluebirds (school buses) will command a premium, I guess. It’s like the Cold War but on the highway. My nuke (truck) is bigger than your nuke.
Don’t get me started on brush guards, AKA compact driver killers. I know they have been mentioned, but there is one big fat target for litigation. Next, armor kits for smaller vehicles replete with titanium spikes. I would call it self-defense.
How much safer, I had to ask.
Well, there are about 288 million persons living in America now, according to the Census Bureau. So that swing of 4300 people is about 15 out of every million people. So driving an SUV makes you .000015 less likely to be a traffic statistic next next year.
I would hardly say driving a non-SUV constitutes a ‘seriously’ higher level of risk (if I thought it did constitute a seriously higher risk, I’d join the SUV brigade myself; I’m no more self-sacrificing than Scylla), but it’s still not down there with the likelihood of being struck by lightning. So whether it’s worth basing a vehicular decision on depends on how one feels about changing one’s likelihood of dying in an accident by one chance in roughly 70,000.
I also doubt that all SUVs are equal, or that all regular passenger cars are equal. I’d bet, without looking at any statistics, that my 2000 Accord is safer than a Geo Metro. And if a Lincoln Navigator and a CR-V had a head-on, I’d bet on the Navigator. In a collision between the Accord and the CR-V, it’s probably about equal. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Carry on.
Well, looky here - the witch hunt is still in full cry! Have the SUV haters decided which SUV driver is going to be first up to the stake? Wait a minute - fires add to the pollution levels, so I guess burning at the stake is out; I suppose you’ll have to settle for something less flashy and more eco-friendly, like a good old-fashioned lynching.
I found a great article some of you might like to read (and some of you ought to read) called Why I Drive a Hate Crime.
Isn’t it wonderful to see such a Great American Pasttime being enjoyed right here on the SDMB?
Okay, I haven’t been able read some of the later posts in this thread (gotta catch up tonight when the board is faster), but I’ve been working on this for a couple of days and I’m gonna start posting what I’ve got, as I believe it is relevant. You see, unlike those who believe the media hype unreservedly, or those God-like ones who think that one of the basic American rights is ‘No one can inconvenience anyone else’, I’ve actually done a little bit of research. :o
However, I’m going to start with one of the things that is pissing me off the most - the “But I can’t see around them” whiners.
I’ve got news for you - you don’t need to see around, over, or through them. “Watch the cars 3 or 4 places ahead of you” isn’t a fucking commandment, it’s a suggestion meant to make you a safer driver, and automatically carries the silent caveat of “when possible”. I think I saw someone one else make one of my points, that, depending on where you do most of your driving, you can’t do that all, or even most, of the time anyway - for reasons that have nothing to do with SUVs.
If you’re having a hard time understanding this, try applying a little common sense - if seeing past the vehicle in front of you was vitally important to your road safety, we would have passed laws years ago making all vehicles a standard size, instead of the huge variety we have now. The reason I am allowed to drive an SUV and you are allowed to drive a toy four-banger is that the relative size of the vehicles is not important as long as you actually know how to drive.
I get the impression from many of the posts here that driver’s licenses can now be mail-ordered, or maybe they’re available as little prizes in cereal boxes. How many of you are aware of something called a ‘safe following distance’? How about ‘safe speed for the circumstances/conditions’? Apparently not very many - I even saw one poster mention ‘safe distance’ - but has no idea what it is (“about the same distance as the other cars”) or it’s purpose - which is not to enable you to see past the vehicle in front of you!
Most of you are aware, aren’t you, that if you rear-end somebody you are at fault? (unless the other vehicle was doing something illegal, in which case the fault is usually split between the drivers) See, there’s this real basic “Rule of the Road” that reads “The overtaking vehicle/vessel/craft (if you are behind someone, you are ‘overtaking’) is responsible for avoiding/preventing collision; the vehicle/vessel/craft being overtaken has the right of way.” The reason this mentions something besides ‘vehicles’ is because it is a universal fucking rule that also applies all over the world to aircraft and watercraft. And, yeah, “Rules of the Road” is the correct and proper term for these ‘laws’ because they are derived from the driving rules for land vehicles.
Let me try to make this real simple - you are required by law to maintain sufficient distance between your vehicle and the vehicle in front of you to allow you to safely stop your vehicle before a collision occurs in case the other vehicle comes to an abrupt stop. People sometimes receive tickets for failing to do so - the citation usually reads something like “Following too closely.” If the vehicle in front of you slams on its brakes and you smack them in the rear end, guess who’s responsible? I’ll give you a hint - it’s not the person that you ran into.
Oh, and in case you’ve lost the point of this little instructional diatribe: If you are maintaining a safe distance from the vehicle in front of you, you don’t have to worry about what is happening in front of that vehicle - whatever happens, you can stop your car before it involves you. I laugh every time I imagine one of you smacking into the rear of an SUV, then standing in traffic court trying to convince the judge that it was the SUV’s fault because you couldn’t see past it. :rolleyes:
BTW, I have a question for this particular group of whiners - if you pull out onto the highway one day and realize that every single vehicle in front of you, for as far as you can see, is an SUV, are you just going to turn around and go back home?
For those of you who would like to be thought of as having at least half of a brain, and would like to increase your chances of surviving a little longer, I found this page (actually a chapter from an army driving manual) that describes both safe following and safe passing, and suggestions (like the ‘two-second rule’) to help you judge your distance.
But I’m not through yet - next up are the ones complaining because SUVs, minivans, etc. are obstructing their view because they are parked along the street, etc. First of all, most places have laws about parking close to intersections and similar locations because it obstructs visibility. In this case the obstructing vehicle is doing something illegal, whether it be an SUV or a Geo Metro, and you should be reporting it instead of whining about it.
Parked alongside the street, possibly obstructing your view of innocent little children who may chase a ball out in front of you? Then slow your fucking ass down! This is one of those times when the 'safe speed for the circumstances/conditions clause applies (if the parked vehicles are legally parked). Speed limits are maximums, not minimums - you don’t have to drive at 35 mph just because the sign says that is the limit! Worried that a child might dart out in front of you from between two SUVs and you won’t be able to stop in time? Then, I repeat, slow your ass down! Is your ‘right’ to drive at the speed limit more important than a child’s life? Or your need to be at a certain place at a certain time? Slow down to a speed that you feel gives you time to stop if a child does do so. Or, whine about the inconvenience, drive at whatever speed you want because it’s your ‘right’, and try to convince the parents of a dead child that it wasn’t your fault, it was those blasted SUVs parked on the side of the road. :rolleyes:
(A little additional tidbit about ‘safe speed’ - did you know that you can be ticketed for speeding and/or reckless driving even when you are driving at the speed limit? See, you go to traffic court to argue the ticket because you were doing 45 mph, which is the posted limit. The officer who ticketed you stands up and says “Yes, she was doing 45, but there was a thick fog and visibility was reduced to 50 feet. Her vehicle can not be brought to a safe stop within 50 feet at a speed of 45 mph, so I judged her speed to excessive and dangerous in those circumstances.” And the judge bangs his little gavel and says "Guilty as charged, you can pay your fine at the clerk’s desk by the door, Next!)
You all do know, don’t you, that if the parking of large vehicles in a particular area does create a safety hazard (or you think it does, anyway), you can complain to whatever government has jurisdiction over that area and ask that some sort of parking restrictions be enacted. They will most likely do some sort of investigation, maybe simply asking the opinion of local law enforcement, and, if they agree with you, pass some sort of ordinance limiting the size of vehicles that can be parked in that area. Haven’t any of you seen signs that say something like “No vehicles over X length/height/weight allowed in this area”? There’s nothing wrong with restricting the size of vehicles allowed in areas where their presence creates a genuine safety risk - what’s wrong is using this as an excuse to tell everyone in the entire country that they can’t drive a particular vehicle *anywhere * because a) it’s unsafe in your neighborhood; b) they inconvenience you; c) you’re an unsafe driver.
Finally, I’ve worked my way down to the “they pull up alongside of me and block my view” group. Guess what? You’re right. Many drivers of larger vehicles - SUVs, trucks, vans - do this, and it’s rude, inconsiderate, and annoying. But this complaint also gets a huge, resounding “So what?”. Wait until the asshole pulls out, then go about your business. Mutter and curse under your breath. At every opportunity, politely inform large-vehicle drivers of how annoying this is - you might be suprised at how many simply never gave it a thought, and will actually try to avoid doing it in the future. But I fail to see where this is a safety issue, and certainly not a reason to ban all SUVs (and other large vehicles) from existence!
And I ain’t through yet, I’m just breaking this into smaller posts because I like hamsters.
Page 4 on my browser and nobody has mentioned stopping distance or avoidance ability yet. These both militate against purchasing a SUV. These are not easily quantifiable, but factor into dozens of collisions or near collisions every minute of every day.
I wonder how many accidents are directly attributable to SUVs and their oil tanker like responses? Just from 60-0 most SUVs require dozens of extra feet to stop. This puts a near miss in a car into someones passinger compartment in an SUV. As speeds increase the stopping distance disparity gets worse and worse for SUVs, this due to their ponderous bulk. Of course, the small ones respond and stop much better, though still almost uniformly worse than cars.
I know I have avoided dozens of accidents. Of course, I always drive sports cars. Supposedly dangerous, but I have a spotless driving record and have never sent anyone to the hospital. Anyone else not buying the SUVs = safe drivers argument? In my experience they are the most aggressive risk-taking drivers on the road, bar none.
I’ll admit that my Cherokee (regular, not Grand) isn’t nearly as large as some SUVs out there - hell, there was one behind me last night that was tall enough that the headlights came straight through my back window, over the tailgate bit. But I haven’t noticed any horrible stopping ability. It stops less well than my previous Cavalier, which thought it was a sports car, but equally as well or better than my Plymouth Reliant. Anyway, stopping distance arguments can’t be SUV-specific - they also effect minivans and pickup trucks, which very few people are bitching about.
Stopping distance?? Is that the best you got? Here’s the simple solution I use for that particular problem…
I DON’T TAILGATE.
The brakes on my truck could stop an elephant. I replaced the Ford ones because I like to tinker. The first time someone other than myself or my fiance’ drives my truck they are going to put themselves through the windshield upon first application of the brakes.
You know, if this was really about saving the planet, then sports cars would be on the rack right along with SUV’s. But this isn’t about saving the planet. It isn’t about dependence on foreign oil and wasted resources. It’s about the fact that some drivers are annoyed by SUV’s and feel that they can’t see around them. It’s about tinted windows and backing out of a parking spot. It’s about headlights too high for some. These are all annoyances, and I admit that they are legitimate ones. But to want a vehicle off the road because it annoys you, to limit the freedom of choice of anybody else for your own sake, is just as selfish as it is claimed all SUV drivers are.
Beagle:
According to Edmunds, the Durango goes from 60-0 in 133 feet.
And according to the same site, The Dodge Neon does it in 122 feet.
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/roadtest/46243/article.html
So the problem is?
Yes, yes, and Lexuses (Lexi?) never use turn signals, Cadillacs are always driven by old people poking along at 45 in a 65 mph speed limit, and volkswagons are always driven by people too stoned to obey traffic laws.
Just last week my ten year old Cherokee (not Grand) was nimble enough and slowed down quickly enough to avoid some asshole in a Thunderbird who spun out on the Grady Curve (a tight corner on I-75/I-85 in Atlanta). He spun around backwards and slid across two lanes. I broke, cut to the right, let him slide within inches of my front bumber as we both traveled several lanes to the right, then I cut left and got around him. True, the Cherokee wasn’t as nimble as my old Celica GT would have been, but it did pretty damn good. It is the driver who is an idiot, not the vehicle.
My job requires me to travel on many unpaved logging or access roads, some times with several people in my Jeep. It irks me to no end when people imply that I drive a Cherokee because of some inflated sense of ego or a feeling of sexual inadequacy. The fact is those roads were killing my Celica. What the Hell else am I supposed to drive?
A couple of minor asides: I do like Subarus and how they are built on a Rally Car chasis instead of a truck chasis, but the deal I got on the jeep was too good to pass up. Also, to be honest, I find the Lincoln Navigator land barges as ridiculous as some of the SUV haters - if they really needed something like that, they would have gotten a Chevy Suburban. But bitching about the cars other people drive is what really shows a sense of inadequecy. Why do you people care?
“But bitching about the cars other people drive is what really shows a sense of inadequecy. Why do you people care?”
Jesus, in four pages of blather you don’t get it?
I think “inadequacy” is a piss-poor dismissal of some people’s concerns. If you want to believe that it’s “personal issues” that lie behind the posts of these threads, well, I can’t imagine how I’d begin to talk you out of it, because I can’t imagine how you can believe that.
Okay, now the headlight thing!
I agree that there is a problem with glaring, overly bright headlights - but it’s not just SUVs, nor even the entire ‘Light Truck’ division. I can’t, for the life of me, understand why those halogen headlights are allowed. IMO, the light from halogen bulbs is far too intense for headlight use. Maybe the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will take a look at this before much longer and have them taken off of the market.
(BTW, I’m going to try not to sound like the bitch from hell in the rest of my posts - it’s mostly the people trying to blame SUVs for their own poor driving skills that makes me want to scream and curse.)
But I can certainly sympathize with those complaining about headlights flooding the interior of their cars from behind and glaring back from the mirrors, as that is not only uncomfortable, it can be downright dangerous. In case anyone missed this earlier, I have two vehicles - a 1990 Suburban and a 1989 VW Fox, which are just about as far apart in vehicle size as you can get. I drive both, although for the last couple of years the Fox has relegated to occasional short trips to town because it’s become prone to unexpected breakdowns in its old age. Anyway, I have a great deal of driving experience in vehicles at both ends of the size spectrum, and I’ve driven both of them in all kinds of places - for example, I went to Chicago in the VW, to Washington D.C. and Pittsburgh in the old Suburban, and to Omaha in my current Suburban - so, although my conclusions may be wrong, at least they are based on knowledge and actual experience, rather than an inflammatory news program or magazine article.
Okay, once again this is not an ‘SUV problem’ - it’s more of a driver problem. If you’re behind another car, dim your lights! Especially if you drive an SUV, pickup truck, van, etc. that is tall. I always understood that having your headlights on bright was illegal in towns and cities, as there is absolutely no reason for it. Even if the power goes out and the town is completely dark, you shouldn’t be driving fast enough in any populated area to need your brights. And I don’t remember what the actual recommended distance is, but most of my driving is rural and I dim my lights if I find myself within 1/4 mile of another car - for oncoming cars it can be as much as a mile, if a straight-away is long enough.
Don’t pull right up on the bumper of a car in front of you, especially if you are in the larger vehicle. I can’t remember which website I saw this on, I’ll go back and look it up if anyone wants me to, but a good rule-of-thumb is to stop just as the bottom of the other car’s rear tires meets the top edge of your hood. Another website advised leaving 1 1/2 car lengths (your car, not theirs!) between you and the car in front. This is for more reasons than headlight glare - it also gives you a safety cushion should you get rear-ended by another car. It also provides room for you to maneuver if you have to pull around the car in front if has a breakdown - you should have space enough to pull out around them without backing up.
The mirrors, now - you know, most cars have a little switch on the rearview mirror that changes the angle of the reflector so that you can still see behind, but the headlight glare is reflected away from you. You can also try changing the angle of the mirror slightly - not enough to lose your view, just enough so that the glare isn’t in your eyes. A few cars have side mirrors that have some sort of modification to reduce glare, but if your car doesn’t, often you can re-direct the glare by moving the mirrors a little bit while still allowing you to see behind you.
Oddly enough, it’s been my experience that headlight glare is usually only a problem in one mirror, either the rearview or the side, but rarely both. I don’t know how this compares with other people’s experiences in various vehicles, but if this is the case, you can try my method, which is to move the offending mirror and use the other one for my rear view until the situation changes (offending vehicle no longer behind, or suddenly realizes that he’s has his brights on and dims them.).
I don’t know if anyone still knows this or not, but years ago there was a ‘signal’ to let a following driver know that his lights were blinding you (and of course he was expected to be nice and either dim them or, if already dim, back off a little to give you a break.) If you’re being followed by a ‘glarer’, it won’t hurt to try it and see if they recognize or choose to respond to it: just turn your rearview mirror to a vertical position. You can return it to the regular position after giving the following car time to notice the difference.
Also, the NHTSA is addressing this problem - new cars are all supposed to have a new, electronically controlled mirror that automatically dims when the light intensity reaches a certain level. They dim by degrees, according to how much light they are receiving, so the mirror is no darker than necessary. I presume that many, if not all, cars will be using the same technology on side mirrors.
You can also buy automatically-dimming mirrors and install them, or have them installed, in your older car. The appear to be widely available - a search for automatically-dimming mirrors should turn up quite a few sources - but I didn’t check any of them out to see what the prices are. Probably expensive, but possibly worth it if you can afford to add them on. If you’re sorta mechanically handy, or have a trustworthy friend or family member who is, this site provides DIY instructions for installing these kind of mirrors.
If you drive a tall vehicle, it may also be possible to re-adjust your headlights so that they point downward a little bit more than normal; this would probably be helpful to the cars you are stopped behind. (If you’re wondering why should bother, consider that you will be behind them if they have an accident because of ‘sun spots’ in their eyes, and I’m sure you don’t want a tire or something crashing through your windshield) However, many states have inspections that require the headlights to be adjusted a certain way, so this might not be possible. If you live in an ‘inspection’ state and are having a lot of problems with glaring headlights, you might try writing a state representative, or Highway Safety Department, or even try to find a reporter who needs something to stir the shit about, and suggest that taller vehicles should be required to have their headlights adjusted to a lower angle. It may be considered unsafe, in which case you’re out of luck, but you might be successful in prompting a beneficial change to the regulations.
I got some info about the ‘safety issue’ coming up for my next installment - including some links that I think some of you will appreciate. Gonna break off here.