http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/20/070820fa_fact_owen?printable=true

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Most people don’t notice bad nighttime lighting; if you do, it can make 
you slightly crazed. When I’m driving at night, my wife has to tell me 
to watch the road instead of looking back over my shoulder at a yard 
whose trees have floodlights in their branches, or at an empty parking 
lot so bright that you could deliver babies in it."

...WTH?



"the study subsequently revealed a strong association between working 
the night shift and an increased risk of breast cancer."

"I lay on my back on a bench and watched for meteors, which streaked 
past every few minutes: in a truly dark sky, shooting stars are too 
numerous to bother wishing on. We stayed until we noticed the first glow 
of the approaching sunrise. Stars near the eastern horizon melted away 
ahead of it, as though the darkness itself were dissolving."

Wait... so... staying awake at night causes cancer... so you decided to 
stay awake all night? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v3 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Wait... so... staying awake at night causes cancer... so you decided to 
> stay awake all night? ;-)

  No, light during sleep.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:13:21 +0100, Orchid XP v3 wrote:

> "Most people don’t notice bad nighttime lighting; if you do, it can make
> you slightly crazed. When I’m driving at night, my wife has to tell me
> to watch the road instead of looking back over my shoulder at a yard
> whose trees have floodlights in their branches, or at an empty parking
> lot so bright that you could deliver babies in it."
> 
> ...WTH?

Actually, I do this, but not to that great an extent.  But when someone's 
coming at me with their bright lights on, I can't help but stare into 
them for some reason.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:55:28 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:13:21 +0100, Orchid XP v3 wrote:
>
>> "Most people don’t notice bad nighttime lighting; if you do, it can make
>> you slightly crazed. When I’m driving at night, my wife has to tell me
>> to watch the road instead of looking back over my shoulder at a yard
>> whose trees have floodlights in their branches, or at an empty parking
>> lot so bright that you could deliver babies in it."
>>
>> ...WTH?
>
> Actually, I do this, but not to that great an extent.

What deliver babies in parking lots?

>  But when someone's
> coming at me with their bright lights on, I can't help but stare into
> them for some reason.

It's a pain - hello where did the road go. The road is grey, the pavement  
(if any) is grey, the kerbstones (again if any) are grey; drive along our  
up and down and side to side roads and it's real good fun.

Oh wait we'll stick some cat's eyes down the middle of the road, great  
except the standard cleaning mechanism relies on them being run over and  
that clearly hasn't happened in years so they reflect as much light as a  
speck of glass.

Hmm how about glow sticks down the road, same styling as the cat's eyes,  
but with a sturdy little solar panel on top just enough to trickle charge  
some LEDs. The input from the charger drops the lights come on, I also  
know that they've come up with a better cleaning method. Brighter and  
cleaner.

-- 
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

Phil Cook wrote:

>>> ...WTH?
>>
>> Actually, I do this, but not to that great an extent.
> 
> What deliver babies in parking lots?

I was wondering...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> a écrit dans le message de 
news: op.tyhva2x4c3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>
> What deliver babies in parking lots?

I was told ... storks?

Marc

Post a reply to this message

M_a_r_c wrote:

> I was told ... storks?

+15

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:46:04 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:55:28 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:13:21 +0100, Orchid XP v3 wrote:
>>
>>> "Most people don’t notice bad nighttime lighting; if you do, it can
>>> make you slightly crazed. When I’m driving at night, my wife has to
>>> tell me to watch the road instead of looking back over my shoulder at
>>> a yard whose trees have floodlights in their branches, or at an empty
>>> parking lot so bright that you could deliver babies in it."
>>>
>>> ...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. ;-)

>>  But when someone's
>> coming at me with their bright lights on, I can't help but stare into
>> them for some reason.
> 
> It's a pain - hello where did the road go. The road is grey, the
> pavement (if any) is grey, the kerbstones (again if any) are grey; drive
> along our up and down and side to side roads and it's real good fun.

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...

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.

> Oh wait we'll stick some cat's eyes down the middle of the road, great
> except the standard cleaning mechanism relies on them being run over and
> that clearly hasn't happened in years so they reflect as much light as a
> speck of glass.
> 
> Hmm how about glow sticks down the road, same styling as the cat's eyes,
> but with a sturdy little solar panel on top just enough to trickle
> charge some LEDs. The input from the charger drops the lights come on, I
> also know that they've come up with a better cleaning method. Brighter
> and cleaner.

Well, you still want headlights, though - otherwise you can't see the 
cars coming at you from any direction.  That's one of my pet peeves about 
driving, people who drive after dark without their lights.  Makes me want 
to ram them...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:55:30 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:46:04 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:55:28 +0100, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:13:21 +0100, Orchid XP v3 wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Most people don’t notice bad nighttime lighting; if you do, it can
>>>> make you slightly crazed. When I’m driving at night, my wife has to
>>>> tell me to watch the road instead of looking back over my shoulder at
>>>> a yard whose trees have floodlights in their branches, or at an empty
>>>> parking lot so bright that you could deliver babies in it."
>>>>
>>>> ...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.

>>>  But when someone's
>>> coming at me with their bright lights on, I can't help but stare into
>>> them for some reason.
>>
>> It's a pain - hello where did the road go. The road is grey, the
>> pavement (if any) is grey, the kerbstones (again if any) are grey; drive
>> along our up and down and side to side roads and it's real good fun.
>
> 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.

> 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.

>> Oh wait we'll stick some cat's eyes down the middle of the road, great
>> except the standard cleaning mechanism relies on them being run over and
>> that clearly hasn't happened in years so they reflect as much light as a
>> speck of glass.
>>
>> Hmm how about glow sticks down the road, same styling as the cat's eyes,
>> but with a sturdy little solar panel on top just enough to trickle
>> charge some LEDs. The input from the charger drops the lights come on, I
>> also know that they've come up with a better cleaning method. Brighter
>> and cleaner.
>
> 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.

>  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.

-- 
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

Phil Cook wrote:
> 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.

I see a staggering number of road users with full-beam lights on hours 
before the daylight begins to go. I know some cars have automatic 
side-lights etc, (e.g. Volvos) but I really can't believe that all these 
blazing beacons are helpless automatics. Sometimes I feel I'm the only 
driver on the road without my headlights on, at 5 or 6pm in the summer. 
Ludicrous. And wasteful.

The other one is people driving around with one busted headlamp - it's 
really offputting, especialy on motorways etc cos they look like 
motorcycles. I don't understand how you can fail to notice that. And 
changing the bulb isn't exactly complicated. Laziness.

Post a reply to this message

> I see a staggering number of road users with full-beam lights on hours 
> before the daylight begins to go. I know some cars have automatic 
> side-lights etc, (e.g. Volvos) but I really can't believe that all these 
> blazing beacons are helpless automatics. Sometimes I feel I'm the only 
> driver on the road without my headlights on, at 5 or 6pm in the summer. 
> Ludicrous. And wasteful.

I always have my headlights on no matter what the weather or time of day if 
I'm driving on the autobahn.  The reason is simply so that people will 
notice me sooner/at all when I am approaching from behind (and hopefully not 
pull out infront of me).  Wasteful doesn't really come into it, the lights 
are using 80 W and my engine is developing 80 kW.

However, once off the autobahn I always turn them off if the light is good. 
I know that there are lots of other road users (pedestrians, cyclists etc) 
that do not have the opportunity to have a pair of socking great big 40W 
bulbs on in broad daylight.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> I see a staggering number of road users with full-beam lights on hours 
>> before the daylight begins to go. I know some cars have automatic 
>> side-lights etc, (e.g. Volvos) but I really can't believe that all 
>> these blazing beacons are helpless automatics. Sometimes I feel I'm 
>> the only driver on the road without my headlights on, at 5 or 6pm in 
>> the summer. Ludicrous. And wasteful.
> 
> I always have my headlights on no matter what the weather or time of day 
> if I'm driving on the autobahn.  The reason is simply so that people 
> will notice me sooner/at all when I am approaching from behind (and 
> hopefully not pull out infront of me).  Wasteful doesn't really come 
> into it, the lights are using 80 W and my engine is developing 80 kW.

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.

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...

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:17:03 +0100, Bill Pragnell  
<bil### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> scott wrote:
>>> I see a staggering number of road users with full-beam lights on hours  
>>> before the daylight begins to go. I know some cars have automatic  
>>> side-lights etc, (e.g. Volvos) but I really can't believe that all  
>>> these blazing beacons are helpless automatics. Sometimes I feel I'm  
>>> the only driver on the road without my headlights on, at 5 or 6pm in  
>>> the summer. Ludicrous. And wasteful.
>>  I always have my headlights on no matter what the weather or time of  
>> day if I'm driving on the autobahn.  The reason is simply so that  
>> people will notice me sooner/at all when I am approaching from behind  
>> (and hopefully not pull out infront of me).

So you're compensating for everyone else's poor driving skills ;-)

>>  Wasteful doesn't really come into it, the lights are using 80 W and my  
>> engine is developing 80 kW.
>
> 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.

When they're coming at me I do, but I've got to side with Scott on this. I  
do notice the cars behind me with their lights on, mostly because I now  
have a set of lights reflecting off my mirrors and directly into my eyes.

> As for the waste, well, I am speaking as an owner of a 1.1L tiddler

'Well they say the car is inversely proportional to one's manhood' said  
the smug owner of the 800cc Matiz.

-- 
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

> 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, braking, etc.

Post a reply to this message

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

> 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.

The energy needed to move from A to B against drag is proportional to your 
speed squared... ie going 100 will use double the fuel as going 70.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

There are some countries that still get sun in the winter too :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >  There are some countries where it's mandatory to always drive with the
> > lights on.

> There are some countries that still get sun in the winter too :-)

  "Always" includes summer too. Here the length of the day in summer is
*long*. Where I live in mid-summer it never gets completely dark, and
even this almost-dark lasts for a few hours only.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> >  There are some countries where it's mandatory to always drive with the
>> > lights on.
>
>> There are some countries that still get sun in the winter too :-)
>
>  "Always" includes summer too. Here the length of the day in summer is
> *long*. Where I live in mid-summer it never gets completely dark, and
> even this almost-dark lasts for a few hours only.

Sounds lovely, but the winter equivalent doesn't sound so great...

It wasn't really a serious point anyway, because there are other countries 
nearer the equator that require lights on all the time, like Austria for 
example.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Sounds lovely, but the winter equivalent doesn't sound so great...

  I wouldn't change this for anything:

http://warp.povusers.org/photos/patikka5/

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Sounds lovely, but the winter equivalent doesn't sound so great...
> 
>  I wouldn't change this for anything:
> 
> http://warp.povusers.org/photos/patikka5/

OMG there is a sun in winter there!

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/20/070820fa_fact_owen?printable=true

Thanks for this - it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately, 
actually.

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch <-> wrote:
> Thanks for this - it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately, 
> actually.

  After reading the article I have been noticing the amount of useless
night illumination here where I live. And I assume that here the amount
is relatively moderate. I can only imagine how much wasted night illumination
there must be in really big cities.

  Examining the pattern of night illumination here it feels like the
principle by which they put the lights is only "is there enough illumination
here? No? Let's put a couple of lights more", without the slightest regard
about useless lighting which only consumes electricity (which the city has
to pay!) and causes light pollution.
  Just in the close vicinity of where I live I can see that they could
remove at least half of all the lights without affecting considerably
the illumination. I don't know how much the city has to pay for light
illumination, but I assume that if it was cut in half for the entire
city it wouldn't be a small saving annually.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  Examining the pattern of night illumination here it feels like the
> principle by which they put the lights is only "is there enough 
> illumination
> here? No? Let's put a couple of lights more", without the slightest regard
> about useless lighting which only consumes electricity (which the city has
> to pay!) and causes light pollution.
>  Just in the close vicinity of where I live I can see that they could
> remove at least half of all the lights without affecting considerably
> the illumination. I don't know how much the city has to pay for light
> illumination, but I assume that if it was cut in half for the entire
> city it wouldn't be a small saving annually.

Less lights = more crime.  Increased crime can cost a city more money
than they'd save on the light bill.  There's arguments about that of course,
but the bottom line is that the incarceration costs are so high that even
a very small drop in the crime rate pays the light bill.

IMO crime is probably more likely in poorly lit areas with unlit areas
nearby.  Brightly lit areas are likely more safe, and completly dark
areas are probably more safe.

Cutting back the dense underbrush in city parks also reduces crime,
probably for the same lighting/visibility reasons.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:
>>  Examining the pattern of night illumination here it feels like the
>> principle by which they put the lights is only "is there enough 
>> illumination
>> here? No? Let's put a couple of lights more", without the slightest regard
>> about useless lighting which only consumes electricity (which the city has
>> to pay!) and causes light pollution.
>>  Just in the close vicinity of where I live I can see that they could
>> remove at least half of all the lights without affecting considerably
>> the illumination. I don't know how much the city has to pay for light
>> illumination, but I assume that if it was cut in half for the entire
>> city it wouldn't be a small saving annually.
> 
> Less lights = more crime.  Increased crime can cost a city more money
> than they'd save on the light bill.  There's arguments about that of course,
> but the bottom line is that the incarceration costs are so high that even
> a very small drop in the crime rate pays the light bill.

I think that saying that less lights = more crime is too much of a 
simplification.  As the article mentions:

"The lighting near the mailboxes was of a type that Crawford calls 
“criminal-friendly”: it was almost painful to look at, and it turned the 
walkway behind the boxes into an impenetrable void."

And

"Much so-called security lighting is designed with little thought for how 
eyes—or criminals—operate. Marcus Felson, a professor at the School of 
Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, has concluded that lighting is 
effective in preventing crime mainly if it enables people to notice 
criminal activity as it’s taking place, and if it doesn’t help criminals 
to see what they’re doing. Bright, unshielded floodlights—one of the most 
common types of outdoor security lighting in the country—often fail on 
both counts, as do all-night lights installed on isolated structures or on 
parts of buildings that can’t be observed by passersby (such as back 
doors). A burglar who is forced to use a flashlight, or whose movement 
triggers a security light controlled by an infrared motion sensor, is much 
more likely to be spotted than one whose presence is masked by the 
blinding glare of a poorly placed metal halide “wall pack.”"

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message