You may already know this, but this upward glare was purposely engineered
into the DOT headlights so that overhead signs would be more visible.

2009/11/11 Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@mac.com>

> Number one complaint to the US DOT has to do with glare from other
> vehicle headlights
> The old incadescent bulbs were not viewed as so bad, but the shift to
> whiter and bluer lights has led to a vast increase in complaints about
> oncoming glare.
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 10, 2009, at 4:01 PM, John Anderson wrote:
>
>  Ahh baloney.  And that is the point of the question.  Yes the
>> federal government wants you to believe all that, and maybe it is
>> true in some reflectors.  For years we've all stuffed higher output
>> halogen's in stock reflectors that are illegal as well, or as
>> illegally run european H4 relfectors, or what have you.  My point on
>> the Rav is that I personally (yeah, not scientific at all) feel no
>> significant glare to oncoming drivers is produced and so does 14
>> months of not getting flashed for them.  But I'm easily willing to
>> accept that for some instances this might not be the case, ie.
>> perhaps in a stock Vanagon reflector, or it might be, which is what
>> I'm trying to find out.
>>
>> YMMV.
>>
>> John
>>
>> --- On Tue, 11/10/09, Mike S <mikes@flatsurface.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a bad idea. I'm assuming your're talking about the kits which
>> place a HID bulb where a halogen used to be. Proper HIDs are a
>> system - bulb position, reflector and lens are all designed to
>> produce a proper beam. The arc in a HID is a different size/shape
>> than a filament, and retrofit kits produce significantly more glare
>> for other drivers. Leave it to the pre-pubes who want to be cool
>> with their low output 9000K (more is better! not) purple lights.
>>
>>
>>
>>

--
Chris S.
Disclaimer: "Death and serious injury may occur"