On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:56:20 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>>>>> ...WTH?
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I do this, but not to that great an extent.
>>>
>>> What deliver babies in parking lots?
>>
>> Um, no, I leave that to my wife. ;-)
> 
> Good call, you just drive her there.

Something like that, yes.  She's the one who took training to be a 
midwife, after all. ;-)

>> Yeah, it's difficult at best - I've gotten better the last couple of
>> years, but there's still a bit of that 'moth' reaction - bright light,
>> must stare at it...
> 
> But even if you don't everything vanishes, especially regarding the
> ponces with halogens 'Well it allows me to see where I'm going more
> clearly' shame it prevents anyone else.

Well, yes and no....I don't mind the halogens if they're aimed properly.

>> My wife's got occular albinism, so she *can't* drive at night (bright
>> lights blind her for 10-15 seconds, which is an eternity when driving),
>> so I have to.
> 
> That must be an annoyance for her, making you the default designated
> driver.

Yep, and sometimes for me as well - though I don't drink much, it does 
mean that I need to watch myself when we go out, since I end up having to 
drive us home.

>> Well, you still want headlights, though - otherwise you can't see the
>> cars coming at you from any direction.
> 
> Oh sure, but why do they need to be angled where they are; why do you
> need two pair I wonder what would happen if we went back to war-time
> conditions with cardboard stuck over the lights with just small slits
> cut out of them.

We'd still have people who forget.  Part of the issue, I think, is that 
some drivers become reliant on DRL, which are high beams at 50% or 
something like that - which are aimed higher.  The manufacturers need to 
use the regular lights rather than the highs.

And put a gizmo in the seat to shock the driver if they drive with only 
their DRLs or lights off after dark.

>>  That's one of my pet peeves about
>> driving, people who drive after dark without their lights.  Makes me
>> want to ram them...
> 
> Mines the reverse, people driving along with full lights on when they
> don't need to. Really don't see many people driving without lights at
> night, some faulty ones perhaps or just side-lights (which is legal in
> street-lit areas). Biggest bugbear now is those cars that switch the
> side-lights on automatically regardless of light conditions Seriously
> people if I can't see your car in full bloody daylight having two dim
> lights on at the front ain't gonna make a difference.

Side-lights?  I don't think we've got that over here....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:14:18 +0100, Bill Pragnell wrote:

> I see a staggering number of road users with full-beam lights on hours
> before the daylight begins to go.

I sometimes turn my lights on in the garage, to make sure I actually put 
the car in reverse to back out.  It can be dark in the garage, even in 
the daytime.

I *usually* turn them off once out, but sometimes I forget.  Then there 
is the newer cars that use daytime running lights (DRLs).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Hmm, in broad daylight I don't notice cars any quicker if they have 
>> their lights on but I guess I can't speak for everyone.
> 
> It still amazes me how some people *don't* notice a car approaching from 
> behind.  I don't know about everyone else, but when I see something 
> moving out of the corner of my eye it gets my attention.  Then it's 
> blatantly obvious when they suddenly see you :-)
> 
>> As for the waste, well, I am speaking as an owner of a 1.1L tiddler 
>> whose idling engine pitch significantly alters when the lights go on! 
>> :-) Even so, 0.1% of 30 years of petrol multiplied by the number of 
>> car owners and all that...
> 
> ...comes to 0.1% :-)  I'm sure that far more is "wasted" by other 
> methods, like air-con, going too fast, having your windows open, 

Going too fast is probably the big one - I'm amazed at the difference in 
fuel consumption when I cruise even 5 mph faster over a long distance. 
Air-con must be another shocker, especially in the States. Of course, in 
my case, windows open and air-con are the same thing... :)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:18:04 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

>>> Yeah, it's difficult at best - I've gotten better the last couple of
>>> years, but there's still a bit of that 'moth' reaction - bright light,
>>> must stare at it...
>>
>> But even if you don't everything vanishes, especially regarding the
>> ponces with halogens 'Well it allows me to see where I'm going more
>> clearly' shame it prevents anyone else.
>
> Well, yes and no....I don't mind the halogens if they're aimed properly.

Too many self-fit jobs, put in at the same time the boot (trunk) was  
filled in with bass speakers.

>>> Well, you still want headlights, though - otherwise you can't see the
>>> cars coming at you from any direction.
>>
>> Oh sure, but why do they need to be angled where they are; why do you
>> need two pair I wonder what would happen if we went back to war-time
>> conditions with cardboard stuck over the lights with just small slits
>> cut out of them.
>
> We'd still have people who forget.  Part of the issue, I think, is that
> some drivers become reliant on DRL, which are high beams at 50% or
> something like that - which are aimed higher.  The manufacturers need to
> use the regular lights rather than the highs.
>
> And put a gizmo in the seat to shock the driver if they drive with only
> their DRLs or lights off after dark.

Okay I'm going to equate DRL with sidelights (which, if right, answers  
your last question) sidelights are visiblilty aids - full lights to see,  
sidelights to be seen; in other words drizzle, light fog, twilight. Use  
where full lights give you no real aid in seeing where you're going, but  
you want to make sure you're seen.

So saying that if you're driving along a lit street, you don't legally  
require your full lights on as the street lights provide enough  
illumination and your sidelights provide enough of an indication as to  
your prescence.

Yet again it should be one of those driver decision things, which has been  
revoked by cars that just switch them on by default.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:46e8032c$1@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:56:20 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> Side-lights?  I don't think we've got that over here....

   Yes, you have, I think on Harley-Davidsons at least...

   IIRC, the indicators act as side lights, (always on), and then when the 
person wants to turn left or right, the correct side flashes.

   I might be wrong with the term 'side lights' with this though...

    ~Steve~




>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:39:03 +0100, St. wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:46e8032c$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:56:20 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
> 
>> Side-lights?  I don't think we've got that over here....
> 
>    Yes, you have, I think on Harley-Davidsons at least...
> 
>    IIRC, the indicators act as side lights, (always on), and then when
>    the
> person wants to turn left or right, the correct side flashes.
> 
>    I might be wrong with the term 'side lights' with this though...
> 
>     ~Steve~

Ah, OK - now I know what you mean.  I have seen some of those that are 
quite bright, but nothing like a halogen or tungsten bulb in the face.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:05:47 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>> Well, yes and no....I don't mind the halogens if they're aimed
>> properly.
> 
> Too many self-fit jobs, put in at the same time the boot (trunk) was
> filled in with bass speakers.

See, self-fit should just not be allowed.  Except for me - though what 
I'd *really* like is a train horn.  That'll get people's attention!

>> And put a gizmo in the seat to shock the driver if they drive with only
>> their DRLs or lights off after dark.
> 
> Okay I'm going to equate DRL with sidelights (which, if right, answers
> your last question) sidelights are visiblilty aids - full lights to see,
> sidelights to be seen; in other words drizzle, light fog, twilight. Use
> where full lights give you no real aid in seeing where you're going, but
> you want to make sure you're seen.

Nope, DRLs are running the headlamps at 50% on high - it's a new-ish 
thing over here to "improve visibility".

> So saying that if you're driving along a lit street, you don't legally
> require your full lights on as the street lights provide enough
> illumination and your sidelights provide enough of an indication as to
> your prescence.

Here, I believe the law says that you must use your headlamps after dusk, 
regardless of the light level in the street itself.

But at the same time, bicycle riders are required to have lights, and 
usually don't - I nearly ran one over last night who was dressed all in 
black (which certainly didn't help) and decided to cross in front of me.

Pet peeve #73 - bicyclists who can't decide if they're a motor vehicle or 
a pedestrian.  Ride in the car lane, then run the red light (as per 
jaywalking).  Make up your friggin' mind!

> Yet again it should be one of those driver decision things, which has
> been revoked by cars that just switch them on by default.

I like the few cars I've driven with auto lamps, but also like that those 
vehicles (I think the Ford Taurus/Mondeo has that option) allow the 
driver to override the switch.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I see a staggering number of road users with full-beam lights on hours 
> before the daylight begins to go.

  There are some countries where it's mandatory to always drive with the
lights on.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:56:20 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
> Mines the reverse, people driving along with full lights on when they  
> don't need to. Really don't see many people driving without lights at  
> night, some faulty ones perhaps or just side-lights (which is legal in  
> street-lit areas). Biggest bugbear now is those cars that switch the  
> side-lights on automatically regardless of light conditions Seriously  
> people if I can't see your car in full bloody daylight having two dim  
> lights on at the front ain't gonna make a difference.

The problem with driving lights off is, that sometimes it is difficult
to determine, whether the car you see somewhere is parked or just has
a driver who mistakenly thinks that the only purpose of the lights is
for you to see your surroundings.

-- 
Joel Yliluoma - http://bisqwit.iki.fi/
: comprehension = 1 / (2 ^ precision)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:15:05 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:05:47 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> Well, yes and no....I don't mind the halogens if they're aimed
>>> properly.
>>
>> Too many self-fit jobs, put in at the same time the boot (trunk) was
>> filled in with bass speakers.
>
> See, self-fit should just not be allowed.  Except for me - though what
> I'd *really* like is a train horn.  That'll get people's attention!

A steam whistle would be fun.

>>> And put a gizmo in the seat to shock the driver if they drive with only
>>> their DRLs or lights off after dark.
>>
>> Okay I'm going to equate DRL with sidelights (which, if right, answers
>> your last question) sidelights are visiblilty aids - full lights to see,
>> sidelights to be seen; in other words drizzle, light fog, twilight. Use
>> where full lights give you no real aid in seeing where you're going, but
>> you want to make sure you're seen.
>
> Nope, DRLs are running the headlamps at 50% on high - it's a new-ish
> thing over here to "improve visibility".

Yep that's the fellow - lights off, lights dim, lights on, lights full  
(high beam). You need at least one of the latter three when driving at  
night, one of the latter two when driving along unlit streets. I may be  
using old-fangled terms with 'sidelights'.

> But at the same time, bicycle riders are required to have lights, and
> usually don't - I nearly ran one over last night who was dressed all in
> black (which certainly didn't help) and decided to cross in front of me.

Light on the front, light plus reflector on the back here; that's a  
red-line MUST (i.e. legal requirement) for night cycling and yes we get  
exactly the same problem.

> Pet peeve #73 - bicyclists who can't decide if they're a motor vehicle or
> a pedestrian.  Ride in the car lane, then run the red light (as per
> jaywalking).  Make up your friggin' mind!

Yep again a red-line illegality here and yes something they do all the  
bloody time.

>> Yet again it should be one of those driver decision things, which has
>> been revoked by cars that just switch them on by default.
>
> I like the few cars I've driven with auto lamps, but also like that those
> vehicles (I think the Ford Taurus/Mondeo has that option) allow the
> driver to override the switch.

Provided the drivers know this, are told this, and remember this.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message