But if you've had two accidents on the same stretch of road due to the sunlight then I would say you're a liability. After the first accident you would surely have learned your lesson? I agree it's tricky in bright sunlight .... but by the sound of you need to get your eyes checked and take advice from the optician.

I'd strongly second following this advice and visiting an optician.

Last year I was very nearly hit head-on while on my motorbike by a motorist who was dazzled by the sun. They missed a gentle curve and came straight across the centre line into my lane. I had to swerve to the verge while executing an emergency stop: the car missed me by less than a yard. He only saw me as he passed by my side, and that was only because I was sounding my horn to try and alert him.

Putting aside what could have happened to me if he'd hit me head-on, if it had been a car coming the other way, he could have been seriously injured or killed himself.

I don't mean to be harsh, but you've had two accidents already because you failed to react to the road conditions. Please don't let a third one happen that could result in someone - or you - being hurt or killed. Get your vision checked.

Maybe something like this would be worth a try, especially as it doesn't cost much.

www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Car-Sun-Visor-Extension-Clip-on...0

Although i don't wear glasses i do have very sensitive eyes, so am rarely without a pair of sunglasses to hand!. Might actually get one of the above myself.

Regarding the "speedometer - no cheating!" debate, the speedo needle position* and likewise the digital speed readout can, with practice, be seen in peripheral vision, (*straight up is 70 etc.), so barely any time is actually needed to "look" at it. The same is true of satnavs - a brief glance at most.
A competent driver should be able to operate all the controls (I despair at the learner drivers I see looking down at the gear lever, a habit I dearly hope is banished by lesson two!), and deal with a talkative passenger (i.e. respond or else get them to shut up!) and anything else that might occur on a journey short of a sudden sinkhole, hurricane or meteorite strike! Those who absolutely insist on smoking at the wheel should be able to retrieve a ciggy, light it, flick ash into the ashtray, perch it there safely or hold it in the hand and stub it out with absolutely no distractions.
Peugeot and one or two other manufacturers should be compelled to recall every single car fitted with their wretched omnifunctional touchscreens and retrofit a simple, clear "demist NOW!" button for sudden misting-up which is a genuine driving hazard.

Edited by Bilboman on 04/02/2019 at 19:06

Thanks bb, I do find those contributions helpful. The "green tinge" is indeed apparent in my varifocals, so that box is ticked! Though not unduly troubled, I'm certainly more aware of glare than in the past, which I'm pretty sure is down to my eyes rather than the ongoing headlights arms race - my optometrist has mentioned an incipient cataract. Interesting info about photochromatic lenses (from you and others); think I'll pass on them for now.

The very early signs of a cataract shouldn't trouble you a great deal, however, there are 3 main types of cataract.

Assuming you have a nuclear sclerotic based cataract (most common) it will be a very slow change indeed. The two main symptoms of this type of cataract include increased glare with night time driving and poorer contrast sensitivity (reds gradually looking more washed out etc..)

What doesn't help is that OEM xenons tend to be 5000k which is slightly blue bias. This colour spectrum, unfortunately, causes more issues with glare.

4000k, IMO, looks much better and emits more lumens per watt and studies have shown cuts through fog better. Must be more expensive to make in bulk?

So in principle you could reduce glare from a wet road at night with these sunglasses, but for obvious reasons it’s not a good idea.

Does the polarisation of sunlight appear the same as that from headlamps at night? The sources are rather different and the glancing angle is likely different too.

I'm not quite sure of the question, but sunlight reflected off water is polarised, and polarising sunglasses have the lens oriented so as to remove some/most of the sunlight reflected off the water surface. I'm sure you must have looked at a river through polarising sunglasses, and been able to see fish swimming around which were otherwise invisible due to reflections. I believe headlights and the sun produce unpolarised light.

This actually begs the question as to why you can't get headlamps that emit polarised light with the direction of polarisation chosen so as to mimimise glare from reflections from water on the road. Clearly the bulbs could be brighter than normal so that the net output intensity could be the same as at present. I did find some hits when I Googled this subject

As early as the 1950s there was a suggestion that windscreens and headlamps could both be polarised (at 45 degrees) so that oncoming headlamps would be dimmed out. Obviously this would only work if all manufacturers adopted the idea, given the (small) extra cost it wasn't taken up.