HID kits for Honda 98 CRV - Are they a good idea?

"billzz" wrote in message

Just passing by and note that my doc said that one of the criteria for
replacement is trouble seeing at night. I'm 73 and have had one
replaced, the other will be next month, and I drive at night. I'm a
chorale singer so have to read music at music speed, which is harder
than night driving (and was my criteria for replacement.) You might
check with another doc. The lights in my 2010 Honda Pilot Touring
seem very adequate, in fact better than any previous car I've owned.


Well Billzz

I actually failed to complain about seeing at night. He simply tested my
eyesight in the office and examined my eye and saw the cataracts. He said I
had 20/20 vision with my glasses. Of course that was in a well lit room.
Maybe if I go in and complain I will get the surgery. How awful was it?

Teggers' casual reference to my "failings" did not seem like a very nice way
to put it. Of course the newsgroups have never been noted too much for
politeness.

Glad to hear your new Honda has nice lighting. The original lights on the
1998 Honda CRV were nothing to write home about. They worked. That is about
as much as they did.

So far I have gotten no headlight flashes at my new gas discharge bulbs. I
am always waiting for that first blast to tell me that I have too much
light.

Sounds like you are into music. I am afraid my only interest in music is as
a listener. I do listen to a lot of music at home.

Michael

 

Just trying to help. Cataracts are "cloudiness" of the lens, and they
definitely cut down on the amount of light that gets to the retina, to
the point of opaqueness. My situation might be worse than yours as I
also have post-vitreous detachment, in both eyes. The procedure only
took thirty minutes to remove the lens and replace with an artificial
lens, using only a Valium, and I was awake and could follow
directions. The eye is both immobilized and anesthetized, so other
than some weird bending of the light as the lens is replaced, there is
no discomfort at all. Wore an eye patch (which is why they do them at
separate times) for one day, then three types of drops 3x day for two
weeks. I could drive and do anything the next day, but my wife drove
me home as an added precaution. The only drawbacks (I had none) is
possible infection, possible scar tissue, and possible movement of the
lense. They have different types of lenses, but Medicare will only
pay for the simplest one-focus lens. The multi-focus lens means no
glasses are subsequently required, but they focus 60% distance, 40%
near, meaning that if you are reading then the print will be clear,
but there will be a slight "halo" caused by the 60% far lense. Same
thing for viewing a movie in the theater, sharp lines with a small
halo, caused by the 40% near-focus lens. I chose the ordinary lense
for several reasons. I've worn glasses for so long, and in the army
for 26 years, so I am used to them, and in fact, feel "naked" without
them. The multi-focus lenses are more expensive, and I would have had
to pay for them myself. And the operation is more complex, with much
more exact measurements required and little room for error. If there
is error then it can be corrected with glasses, but that obviates the
rationale for the operation. With the simpler lense it is expected to
have correction with glasses, and I have progressives meaning the top
part is for far and the bottom part is for near, with a progression in
the middle. Back to 20/20 and my depth perception, and night vision,
are better. My decision point was when I dropped from 20/20 with
glasses to 20/40 with glasses, and could sense the loss of light and
increasing cloudiness. I thought if it is coming, better sooner than
later. And we went to see a 3-D IMAX movie and I knew the one eye was
not seeing as well as the other. Well, that's probably more than
anyone wants to know!

 

"billzz" wrote in message

Just trying to help. Cataracts are "cloudiness" of the lens, and they
definitely cut down on the amount of light that gets to the retina, to
the point of opaqueness. My situation might be worse than yours as I
also have post-vitreous detachment, in both eyes. The procedure only
took thirty minutes to remove the lens and replace with an artificial
lens, using only a Valium, and I was awake and could follow
directions. The eye is both immobilized and anesthetized, so other
than some weird bending of the light as the lens is replaced, there is
no discomfort at all. Wore an eye patch (which is why they do them at
separate times) for one day, then three types of drops 3x day for two
weeks. I could drive and do anything the next day, but my wife drove
me home as an added precaution. The only drawbacks (I had none) is
possible infection, possible scar tissue, and possible movement of the
lense. They have different types of lenses, but Medicare will only
pay for the simplest one-focus lens. The multi-focus lens means no
glasses are subsequently required, but they focus 60% distance, 40%
near, meaning that if you are reading then the print will be clear,
but there will be a slight "halo" caused by the 60% far lense. Same
thing for viewing a movie in the theater, sharp lines with a small
halo, caused by the 40% near-focus lens. I chose the ordinary lense
for several reasons. I've worn glasses for so long, and in the army
for 26 years, so I am used to them, and in fact, feel "naked" without
them. The multi-focus lenses are more expensive, and I would have had
to pay for them myself. And the operation is more complex, with much
more exact measurements required and little room for error. If there
is error then it can be corrected with glasses, but that obviates the
rationale for the operation. With the simpler lense it is expected to
have correction with glasses, and I have progressives meaning the top
part is for far and the bottom part is for near, with a progression in
the middle. Back to 20/20 and my depth perception, and night vision,
are better. My decision point was when I dropped from 20/20 with
glasses to 20/40 with glasses, and could sense the loss of light and
increasing cloudiness. I thought if it is coming, better sooner than
later. And we went to see a 3-D IMAX movie and I knew the one eye was
not seeing as well as the other. Well, that's probably more than
anyone wants to know!



Thanks so much for your in depth account Billzz.

It sounds like it will not be that tough a deal at all. I will also go with
the single focus lens. I agree with your rationale. I don't live where I
could see a 3D Imax movie. I am jealous. I would love to see that.

We make do with a large flat screen at home. We watch a new movie each night
at 10 PM. We get them all from Netflix.

I imagine some other members of this group got bored with your post. I read
it twice. It applies to me. I have noticed that most younger people think
they will not got old. Bad eyesight and other infirmities only happen to
other people. Wait till they find out that this outcome also has their name
on it. Wait till Tegger finds he needs help seeing at night. His attitude
will somehow have a whole new perspective. His advice to simply quit driving
at night will somehow not apply to himself. The worm always seems to turn.

Michael

 

Sorry, Michael, I have to disagree: 69 years old, cataract in R/eye
removed and clear lens inserted in 2005, cataract in L/eye removed and
clear lens inserted in 2007 (after having LASIK on both eyes in 2002).
Lately I find I need more light at night, especially on strange roads,
so I use the high beams on my 2003 Accord sedan; but *never* into
oncoming traffic or vehicles I'm following closely. I do not expect
Tegger to change his tune in 20 or so years. I hope you change yours
much sooner than that.

Tony

 

As an aside, many people have problems with 3-D. We've seen several
movies in IMAX 3-D, and they are dark and sometimes disconcerting. We
saw Avatar, and then got the BlueRay for our home theater. I much
prefer the BlueRay. It is brighter, it is clearer, it is crisper, and
one can imagine the 3-D without any straining. They have got a lot to
do to make 3-D actually workable. And the fact that there are so many
competing systems indicates that they know there is a problem. I'll
wait that out, and I am an early adapter to technology (having worked
in the field.) I had the first BETAMAX, the first SONY CDP-101, but I
have learned to not be the first in some things. I had a contact with
DARPA who made the first digital interactive mapping, and the first
disc cost $50,000.00 to make. The second disc cost $4.00. Sometimes
it is more cost-effective to be second. To make this on-topic, I
drove there in my Honda.

 

As an aside, many people have problems with 3-D. We've seen several
movies in IMAX 3-D, and they are dark and sometimes disconcerting. We
saw Avatar, and then got the BlueRay for our home theater. I much
prefer the BlueRay. It is brighter, it is clearer, it is crisper, and
one can imagine the 3-D without any straining. They have got a lot to
do to make 3-D actually workable. And the fact that there are so many
competing systems indicates that they know there is a problem. I'll
wait that out, and I am an early adapter to technology (having worked
in the field.) I had the first BETAMAX, the first SONY CDP-101, but I
have learned to not be the first in some things. I had a contact with
DARPA who made the first digital interactive mapping, and the first
disc cost $50,000.00 to make. The second disc cost $4.00. Sometimes
it is more cost-effective to be second. To make this on-topic, I
drove there in my Honda.

Yes Billzz.

I just read that someone has developed a new 3-D television receiver that
does not require the use of glasses. I believe that when a new standard is
finally settled upon, it will be one that does not require glasses. I will
wait for that product to hit Wal-Mart. I will not be an early adopter.

And yes despite what critics have said about Avatar, my wife and I liked it.
We watched it from a regular DVD using up conversion to improve resolution.
This increase in resolution is quite pronounced and is good enough for us to
preclude using blue-ray. They other problem with blue-ray is that it is more
expensive to make copies. We have both a Samsung and a Sony DVD player/up
converter. The Samsung is much better at up conversion than the Sony.

If you get your Netflix movies in the morning, make copies, and then mail
them back in the afternoon, you wind up having enough movies to watch
something new every night. It is a luxury that I would never have thought
would be possible years ago.

In the early 80s, I worked at designing video equipment for Showtime. This
experience got me a more secure job with the state of Oregon, from where I
retired. Looks like you have done a lot of work in the field.

I will drive to Wal-Mart to buy my new 3-D television in my Honda, if I live
long enough to see ubiquitous, glasses free, affordable, 3-D televisions.

Was too bad that Betamax lost out to VHS. I am very sensitive to video
quality and surely wanted to see Betamax be the standard.

Michael

 

Sorry, Michael, I have to disagree: 69 years old, cataract in R/eye
removed and clear lens inserted in 2005, cataract in L/eye removed and
clear lens inserted in 2007 (after having LASIK on both eyes in 2002).
Lately I find I need more light at night, especially on strange roads,
so I use the high beams on my 2003 Accord sedan; but *never* into
oncoming traffic or vehicles I'm following closely. I do not expect
Tegger to change his tune in 20 or so years. I hope you change yours
much sooner than that.

Tony

_____________________________________________________

Tony, I don't know if your misunderstood me or not. I do not use my brights
at oncoming traffic ever.

I do use my brights when I have no cars in front of me. I dim for cars at
side streets or even when they are sitting in their driveway warming up
their cars.

I very carefully adjusted the vertical angle of my dims to insure that they
did not rise to the level of oncoming traffic windshields.

If I must drive at night I cannot ask my wife to drive. Her vision was
damaged when she got T2 diabetes and spent a year in denial. Her night
vision is poorer than my own.

So, as I said, I am waiting to see if anyone flashes their lights at me when
I have my dim lights selected. Nothing so far. I did run across another
vehicle coming at me with what looked like gas discharge bulbs. I say this
because of the colour and brightness. He or She had them adjusted so that
they did not hit me in the eye. Of course I cannot be sure if it was gas
discharge bulbs or not, but sure looked like my own.

Tegger seems to be concerned with the possibility of stray light beams
emanating from the headlights because of poor reflector design. This is a
possibility that I cannot be sure about. I can only use the "did they flash
me because they thought I had my brights on" test.

I do not use my brights out on the highway if I have someone several hundred
yards in front of me or just visible. I find that someone following me with
their brights on to be irritating even when they are far behind. I figure
that someone else would feel the same way and so I do not use my brights in
this situation even when I am outside the legal distance where they must be
dimmed.

I have had little experience with my new lights since posting here. After I
get through several hours of night driving, I will post the outcome.

Michael

 

My bad, I thought that was the case (probably my conclusion after
reading about stray light blinding oncoming drivers (or words to that
effect)).

 

Your quoting mechanism is broken. My post wasn't quoted but rather
looked to be part of your post.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

An object's desireability to a dog is directly
proportional to its desireability to another dog.

 

He's using Microsoft Windows Live Mail, a terrible news client.

And he's turned off the insetion of the ">" character when quoting. Why
people do this is totally beyond me.

 

Worse. On the latest client there is no line-leader for quoted material.

 

"Tegger" wrote in message

He's using Microsoft Windows Live Mail, a terrible news client.

And he's turned off the insetion of the ">" character when quoting. Why
people do this is totally beyond me.

--
Tegger


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\

Please note:

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_vista-networking/how-to-reply-correctly-to-postings-in-newsgroups/ba8b442a-ba68-4c33-8a96-3dd5b4851c04


I did not turn this feature off. It is not available in windows live 2011.
See URL for this information.

I agree that Microsoft Windows Live Mail is terrible. Your comment that I
turned it off was not only wrong but intentionally rude.

Try researching your jabs before you make them. It makes you look stupid and
angry.

Michael

 

What's a "line-leader"?

 

There's nothing to stop you from adding the ">" characters yourself, you
know. You've already chosen to override Live Mail's default top-posting, so
what's another running-fix?

As is your insistence on installing headlights that dazzle other drivers.

 

The ">". I'm just pointing out that he didn't turn it off but rather it's
just not there.

 

I see that now. I also see, in the URL he provided, that it appears that
one can still download the earlier version of Live Mail, which DOES allow
the automatic insertion of the ">" character.

 

He also doesn't seem to be aware that a double dash is a .sig
delimiter and any decent newsreader will chop off anything beyond that
in a reply.

Much like mine has done.

Windows doesn't make a news reader. They just claim that whatever
crap they're pushing out as their freebie mail reader is also a
newsreader.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

An object's desireability to a dog is directly
proportional to its desireability to another dog.

 

I do not know about newsreaders but your end note on dogs is about my
golden retriever, who loves me, and my wife, and our son, and our
grandsons, but let the next door dog show up and it is some romping
fun in the snow, and we are forgotten. What do dogs want? Other
dogs. I got that from a really great book entitled, "The Hidden Life
of Dogs," by a sociologist, who knew nothing about dogs and had to dog-
sit, and the dog got away, and she followed on her bike, and wrote
down what the dog did. Now she owns many dogs, and quit to write
about dogs. Someone wrote that you are not a human being until you
are loved by a dog.

 

Thus spake billzz <> :

True. We brought Cody home last year after Toby died. Our first
puppy in six years. Remember 99% of the stuff. 1% cost us a bunch of
money. (hint for those who have never had a puppy: they have two
teething periods)

Check out "PPuppy Kisses Are Good for the Soul"

Our last four have been/are Pembroke Welsh Corgis
--

- dillon I am not invalid

An object's desireability to a dog is directly
proportional to its desireability to another dog.