This is a continuation of the previous blog post on this topic.
The glare problem on our roads is not inevitable. Bright and misused headlights are not a natural by-product of growth. They are the result of weak standards, poor fitting practices, limited enforcement, and habits that have become normal.
We need rules that match real road conditions, particularly for brightness, colour temperature, beam focus, and alignment. Many of the worst glare incidents come not from LED lighting itself, but from lights that are too powerful, poorly focused, or poorly aligned. If a headlamp throws light into other people’s eyes rather than onto the road, it is not improving safety; it is shifting risk onto others.
We also need to bring order to the aftermarket. A major driver of this problem is the easy availability of powerful LED upgrades in the open market, fitted without meaningful checks. If anyone can buy and install high-intensity lights as casually as any other accessory, the road becomes a testing ground for whatever is sold. Responsibility should not sit only with vehicle owners. Installers and sellers should be held to standards because they influence what becomes normal on the street.
Enforcement must become visible, especially in cities. High beam is not meant for routine urban driving, yet it is often used as the default. If enforcement remains rare, the message is that this behaviour is allowed. It is also essential to act against vehicles with missing or unclear number plates, because accountability begins with identification. When a road user cannot be identified, every other rule becomes optional.
Enforcement can also be made more practical and fairer. It is genuinely difficult for a policeman on the road to judge, in the moment, whether a high luminance headlamp is within permitted limits, whether it suits the vehicle category, or whether the beam pattern is wrongly set. That is why enforcement should start with what is easily visible and consistently checkable. The number of extra bulbs or auxiliary lamps fitted on heavy vehicles and even on four-wheelers is often apparent. It should be treated as a straightforward violation when it exceeds permitted limits. In urban areas, the use of high beams itself should attract a minimum penalty, backed by consistent enforcement, so that the rule is predictable and behaviour changes. On highways, we need tools to identify extreme vehicle luminance, along with stronger awareness among highway commuters of the harm caused by glare. More innovative, technology-based approaches can help identify offenders, and with regular observation, consistent policing, and steady outreach, this problem can be brought under control soon.
Awareness matters, but it must be practical. People need to hear simple messages about when high beams are appropriate and when they are dangerous. The key point is not etiquette, but safety. Dazzling others can cause a few seconds of blindness, and those seconds can lead to crashes. This should be communicated clearly to frequent road users such as delivery riders, fleet operators, bus drivers, and truck drivers, because their cumulative impact on night driving conditions is significant.
Finally, we need a better recording of the problem. One reason glare is not taken seriously is that it rarely appears in accident reporting as a contributing factor. If we start documenting glare and headlamp dazzle in nighttime incidents, it becomes harder to dismiss as anecdotal. Better data will also help identify hotspots and time periods with the highest risk, and help enforcement target the proper stretches. Better lighting should improve safety, not reduce it. Roads are a shared space. A headlamp that helps one driver but blinds another is not a safety feature; it is a hazard.
What changes would you support in your city, or on the highways you use most? Have you seen good enforcement anywhere, or specific stretches where this problem is out of control? Share your thoughts and examples, because public pressure often moves faster than policy files.