 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/10/2011 4:54 PM, Invisible wrote:
> By definition, something
> that you can't see cannot possibly affect whether people see you.
Rearrange into a well known phrase or saying.
Ostrich, head, sand, buried.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/10/2011 4:58 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Clearly this car is designed to be driven by morons. Or maybe doddering
> old pensioners who have a 3-second memory capacity...
One wonders why it was given to you, then. :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Driving *after dark* without lights is suicidal. But that's not what
> we're debating. We're talking about driving with your lights on in broad
> daylight, when you can't even see the lights. By definition, something
> that you can't see cannot possibly affect whether people see you.
You seriously can't understand that headlights both increase visiblity
of the car even in bright daylight, *and* they act as a signal that the
car is, indeed, driving towards you?
Yes, in very bright conditions headlights can make your car more
conspicuous, especially if the other driver is looking through their rear
view mirror.
The lights also signal that the car is driving towards you, and not parked
or driving away from you.
I think you are just being stubborn about this.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:54:58 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> We're talking about driving with your lights on in broad daylight, when
> you can't even see the lights. By definition, something that you can't
> see cannot possibly affect whether people see you.
You can see headlights in daylight, and it does increase visibility.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:54:08 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> On 31/10/2011 04:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Um, no, at least here in the US, cars manufactured in the last 10 years
>> or so have headlights that automatically come on when you start the
>> engine.
>
> Fortunately, such stupidity hasn't yet reached this country...
>
> (Or at least, not in any great numbers.)
Hmm, yeah, stupidity, that's why. Not safety.
Or maybe not. It's been demonstrated to be safer.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 31/10/2011 18:40, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:54:58 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> We're talking about driving with your lights on in broad daylight, when
>> you can't even see the lights. By definition, something that you can't
>> see cannot possibly affect whether people see you.
>
> You can see headlights in daylight, and it does increase visibility.
>
Yep, but there is a conflict with motoriders (which here have to always
have the light on when on road): Pushing day light ramp on car has a
detrimental effect on attention of car drivers toward moto riders.
(therefore, more moto accidents, which means more organs available for
transplant (due to the fact that the head is often what break for moto),
but that's another story).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:02:22 +0100, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 31/10/2011 18:40, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:54:58 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> We're talking about driving with your lights on in broad daylight,
>>> when you can't even see the lights. By definition, something that you
>>> can't see cannot possibly affect whether people see you.
>>
>> You can see headlights in daylight, and it does increase visibility.
>>
> Yep, but there is a conflict with motoriders (which here have to always
> have the light on when on road): Pushing day light ramp on car has a
> detrimental effect on attention of car drivers toward moto riders.
>
> (therefore, more moto accidents, which means more organs available for
> transplant (due to the fact that the head is often what break for moto),
> but that's another story).
I don't think that's the case - do you have any data to back that
assertion up?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-10-31 12:54, Invisible a écrit :
> On 31/10/2011 04:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Um, no, at least here in the US, cars manufactured in the last 10 years
>> or so have headlights that automatically come on when you start the
>> engine.
>
> Fortunately, such stupidity hasn't yet reached this country...
>
> (Or at least, not in any great numbers.)
Why would it be stupid?
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> Why would it be stupid?
Resistance to change.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Um, no, at least here in the US, cars manufactured in the last 10 years
>>> or so have headlights that automatically come on when you start the
>>> engine.
>>
>> Fortunately, such stupidity hasn't yet reached this country...
>
> Why would it be stupid?
Let me put it another way: We could insist that all persons ear crash
helmets at all times. That way, if a building collapses on you, you're
already wearing a crash helmet. Or if you've outside and somebody drops
something, you're already protected. Or if a car hits you, the helmet is
going to lessen the injuries to your skull. (Shame about the rest of you.)
Fortunately, nobody thinks this is a good idea. Whilst it does decrease
your risk of injury, that risk is utterly tiny to start with. And a
crash helmet doesn't even remove that risk, only reduce it a bit.
Unfortunately, apparently somebody does think that having your lights
permanently hard-wired in the on-position is a good idea. You may argue
that there's no "harm" to doing this, so why not? Which is true, but you
still look as much of a fool as a guy wandering around town wearing a
crash helmet...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
