Ive read all the posts here, and I am still at a loss as to how much lighting or illumination does a driver really needs to see the road and avoid accidents. To my mind, illumination better than what is necessary can be considered as extravagance, just as food more than necessary is glutony.

I simply cannot understand that which is designed and fitted originally to a car, by so many car engineers who designed it, be simply considered as poorly designed and inadequate? By replacing the original vehicle's headlights, their intensity and their design features, are we saying those engineers are incompetent and poorly educated? Or HID merely a fad to look good or make a statement!

If the problem is because of security, can we not install tint that covers the entire window section of the vehicle, but leaving a small portion of the wind shield, say a square foot or a rectangular portion untinted for the driver to look better at night? Wasnt that a happy compromise? Ours is not an all or nothing world, you know. Everything can be compromised.

HID? a new technology? Ive seen them used as a tool for aggression. Or make the other driver feel inferior or bullied. Yes, I stop because I cant see. Like the wang wang technology used by some vehicles, used not for emergency but for bullying others. My wife, who sometimes rides with me at night, is egging me to install one. Join 'em or lick 'em? I shall remain the latter, or so I think.