Crazy driving laws in your state or country

[Arklin K.]

In another thread, we were discussing crazy California laws and I got to
wondering what crazy laws are in your state or country.

[Arklin K.]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:22:35 +0000, Arklin K. wrote:

> In another thread, we were discussing crazy California laws and I got to
> wondering what crazy laws are in your state or country.

Here is what we posted for California in that other thread ...

The thing about these California laws that gets me is that no other state
has them ... so you start to wonder ... and when you find out that the
laws greatly benefit the services that are mandated, you begin to wonder
yet again.

Over time, living in California, you realize all these laws are merely a
ploy to take money out of your pocket and give it to whomever it was that
lobbied for the mandate.

Case in point:
x) California has a law that you can't teach your kid to drive UNTIL you
allow a perfect stranger to spend two hours with them teaching them to
drive. Only then can you teach them to drive (until they are 17.5 years
of age).

a) California has a smog law that you randomly get a notice that you MUST
go to an inspection-only station for your smog test. Guess what? They run
the EXACT same test. Guess what else? They ALL charge MORE for that same
test! Why? Because you have no choice. It's mandated. Seems to me it
'should' be illegal for them to charge the person who came ahead of you X
dollars for a smog test and then you go to the same place, the same guy,
the same car, the same everything ... the ONLY difference is your
registration requires a test only - and they charge you MORE for that!

b) California has a carbon monoxide detector law that mandates you must
have one on ever floor (essentially) of every house in the state. Who
sponsored the law? Home Depot. Guess why.

c) California had a law called the 'smog impact fee' where they charged
me $300 just for bringing my out-of-state-car into the state. Why?
Because they needed money. Luckily this law was considered a tax on out
of state imports and was deemed unconstitutional - but the only reason
for the law, despite the fancy name, was to raise money from outsiders
moving into the state.

d) California has a law that you have to pay TAX on your car every single
year! Not once but every year! I do realize 'other' states have that law
- but it's crazy. Why should you pay sales tax on this when you don't pay
sales tax every year on, say, a bicycle. Makes no sense other than
California wants your money.

e) California has the highest gasoline tax in the nation. So, the natives
'think' they're getting away with 'free' roads (i.e., they think they
don't have toll roads), yet they're paying more per mile in taxes than
any other state in the nation.

f) California has a law that you can only buy a car in California. You
can't buy a new car, which they define as ANY car that has less than 7500
miles on it, and bring it into the state, even if it meets all the
standards. You have to ship it out on a truck if you don't follow this
law (or it will be confiscated). Why? Guess.

g) California has a law that says you can only buy gasoline made in
California. That gasoline is 'special' gasoline. Made 'only' in
California. Why? Again, so the lobby interests that made this law can
make money by jerking around with the supply and demand curve.

h) California has a law that your head isn't protected if you're over 18
on a bicycle but if you're under 18, you must wear a helmet, as if your
head is more fragile when it's under 18 years of age.

And the list goes on and on and on in the nanny state.

[Arif Khokar]

On 7/13/2012 2:22 AM, Arklin K. wrote:
> In another thread, we were discussing crazy California laws and I got to
> wondering what crazy laws are in your state or country.

1. Driving more than 75 or 80 mph on most interstates is considered
reckless driving

2. Radar Detectors are illegal (it's the only state in the country where
this is the case ...)

[Homer.Simpson]

Arklin K. said

> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:22:35 +0000, Arklin K. wrote:
>
>> In another thread, we were discussing crazy California laws and I
>> got to wondering what crazy laws are in your state or country.
>

> And the list goes on and on and on in the nanny state.

Bed wetting liberal democrats. Nuff said...

[Ashton Crusher]

In NY and at least one or two other eastern states, they mandate that
you MUST have your headlights on anytime you use your wipers.

[jim beam]

On 07/13/2012 08:18 AM, richard wrote:

> Virginia has banned radar detectors for years.

radar detectors are not illegal in ca any more.

the story goes that the former sf mayor and california legislator,
willie brown, got a ticket driving his acura nsx to the state capital
late one night. his radar detector helped him avoid the speeding trap,
but they stopped him anyway and gave him a ticket for having a detector.
willie saw red at this and petitioned to legalize them, successfully
apparently.


--
fact check required

[Brian Gordon]

In article <9sh1085ad2o2etkje...@4ax.com>,

True in at least NC and SC. I don't see anything crazy about it, though. Most cars, except for the cops, seem to comply.

--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| Brian Gordon -->bri...@panix.com<-- brian dot gordon at cox dot net |
+ briang...@hotmail.com Bass: Lexington "Main Street Harmonizers" chorus +
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <9sh1085ad2o2etkje...@4ax.com>,
Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote:

Actually, this is not a bad idea, since headlights greatly improve your
visibility in reduced-visibility conditions (rain, snow, etc.)

It is just as important to be seen as it is to see other traffic.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 7/13/2012 7:44 AM, Arif Khokar wrote:
> On 7/13/2012 2:22 AM, Arklin K. wrote:
>> In another thread, we were discussing crazy California laws and I got to
>> wondering what crazy laws are in your state or country.
>
> 1. Driving more than 75 or 80 mph on most interstates is considered
> reckless driving

>[...]

75 mph is only 5-mph over the legal limit on rural freeways here in Iowa.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

Unless you are using the wipers to clean off a squished bug before it
dries on the windshield - turning on the headlights just for that makes
no sense.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 7/13/2012 1:22 AM, Arklin K. wrote:
> In another thread, we were discussing crazy California laws and I got to
> wondering what crazy laws are in your state or country.
>

On the other hand, California is the only state in the US sensible
enough to allow filtering on a scooter/motorcycle.

[Harry K]

On Jul 13, 8:24 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

And 5 mph over with posted at 70 is well within the usual 'allowance'
before ticketing.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Jul 13, 6:25 pm, bri...@panix.com (Brian Gordon) wrote:
> In article <9sh1085ad2o2etkjeh8jld0tvq94vg0...@4ax.com>,

> Ashton Crusher  <d...@moore.net> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Arklin K."
> ><ark...@notmyemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>In another thread, we were discussing crazy California laws and I got to
> >>wondering what crazy laws are in your state or country.
>
> >In NY and at least one or two other eastern states, they mandate that
> >you MUST have your headlights on anytime you use your wipers.
>
> True in at least NC and SC.  I don't see anything crazy about it, though.  Most cars, except for the cops, seem to comply.
>
> --

> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++­++++

> | Brian Gordon     -->bri...@panix.com<--     brian dot gordon at cox dot net |

> + brianggor...@hotmail.com   Bass: Lexington "Main Street Harmonizers" chorus +
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----

Sorta OT. Was an article in the auto section of my newspaper
recently. Discussion of about DRLs. Oddly what was never mentioned
as to why people didn't like them:

The stupidity of making them the high beam.

Harry K

[Nate Nagel]

On 07/14/2012 12:24 AM, Harry K wrote:
> On Jul 13, 8:24 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>> On 7/13/2012 7:44 AM, Arif Khokar wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/13/2012 2:22 AM, Arklin K. wrote:
>>>> In another thread, we were discussing crazy California laws and I got to
>>>> wondering what crazy laws are in your state or country.
>>
>>> 1. Driving more than 75 or 80 mph on most interstates is considered
>>> reckless driving
>>> [...]
>>
>> 75 mph is only 5-mph over the legal limit on rural freeways here in Iowa.
>>
>> --

>> T�m Sherm�n - 42.435731�N, 83.985007�W

>> Post Free or Die!
>
> And 5 mph over with posted at 70 is well within the usual 'allowance'
> before ticketing.
>
> Harry K
>

Virginia is dumb like that. Speed limit on I-81 (and now other
highways?) is 70, but 80 MPH gets you a "reckless driving" ticket.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <jtqoun$94c$3...@dont-email.me>, Tom $herman (-_-) <""> wrote:
>On 7/13/2012 1:22 AM, Arklin K. wrote:
>> In another thread, we were discussing crazy California laws and I got to
>> wondering what crazy laws are in your state or country.
>>
>On the other hand, California is the only state in the US sensible
>enough to allow filtering on a scooter/motorcycle.

Filtering?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Nate Nagel]

On 07/14/2012 08:16 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <jtqoun$94c$3...@dont-email.me>, Tom $herman (-_-) <""> wrote:
>> On 7/13/2012 1:22 AM, Arklin K. wrote:
>>> In another thread, we were discussing crazy California laws and I got to
>>> wondering what crazy laws are in your state or country.
>>>
>> On the other hand, California is the only state in the US sensible
>> enough to allow filtering on a scooter/motorcycle.
>
> Filtering?
> --scott
>

I believe that that's PC for "lane-splitting."

[Patrick Scheible]

I turn headlights on anytime I'm driving. It makes the car much more
visible to people considering passing on a 2-lane road, pulling out from
a driveway, etc. It's the law in Canada and a good idea here. It also
develops the habit of turning lights off whenever turning the car off.

-- Patrick

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:41:40 -0700, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net>
wrote:

DRLs are just a distracting nuisance. They produce glare. They are
not needed. There is no valid research showing any long term
benefits.

[Gil]

That shows how little you know. You probably don't use seat belts either.

[Ashton Crusher]

I've read the research. They cause as many problems as they allegedly
solve. Out here in the land of the blazing sun we do NOT need more
bright shiny things glaring at us... the sun provides more then enough
already from the metal and other reflective parts of cars. DRL's
actually make it harder to see and judge traffic. If you need DRL's
to see any car that can potentially cause you a problem you simply
can't see well enough to have a drivers license. I know, I know, you
are going to tell me how without DRL's you can't see a car a mile away
from you but you can see them with DRL's. Well, when it's a mile away
it may as well not exist - it's not a hazard to you. By the time it's
close enough to even start to be something you need to be aware of
anyone with even 40/40 eyesight should be able to see it at anytime
headlights are not needed due to the general darkness.

[Gil]

On 14/07/2012 8:35 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 20:25:12 -0400, Gil<G...@nilspam.xyz> wrote:
>
>> On 14/07/2012 4:52 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:41:40 -0700, Patrick Scheible<k...@zipcon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/13/2012 9:40 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>>>> In article<9sh1085ad2o2etkje...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> Ashton Crusher<de...@moore.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Arklin K."
>>>>>>> <ark...@notmyemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>

snipped

>>>> I turn headlights on anytime I'm driving. It makes the car much more
>>>> visible to people considering passing on a 2-lane road, pulling out from
>>>> a driveway, etc. It's the law in Canada and a good idea here. It also
>>>> develops the habit of turning lights off whenever turning the car off.
>>>>
>>>> -- Patrick
>>>
>>> DRLs are just a distracting nuisance. They produce glare. They are
>>> not needed. There is no valid research showing any long term
>>> benefits.
>>
>> That shows how little you know. You probably don't use seat belts either.
>>
>
>
> I've read the research. They cause as many problems as they allegedly
> solve. Out here in the land of the blazing sun we do NOT need more
> bright shiny things glaring at us... the sun provides more then enough
> already from the metal and other reflective parts of cars. DRL's
> actually make it harder to see and judge traffic. If you need DRL's
> to see any car that can potentially cause you a problem you simply
> can't see well enough to have a drivers license. I know, I know, you
> are going to tell me how without DRL's you can't see a car a mile away
> from you but you can see them with DRL's. Well, when it's a mile away
> it may as well not exist - it's not a hazard to you. By the time it's
> close enough to even start to be something you need to be aware of
> anyone with even 40/40 eyesight should be able to see it at anytime
> headlights are not needed due to the general darkness.

I think the 'research' you've read is biased and mis-informed. DRLs do
NOT produce glare. If you've spent some time driving on two lane
highways you'd realize that many cars blend into the road and/or back
ground at distances that are too close to safely pass the car in front
of you and I'm not talking about mile-away stuff. Also, vehicle colour
plays a roll in how easy it is to identify and judge how far away a
vehicle coming towards you really is. Smog and other weather conditions
help to cloak an approaching vehicle as well as roads flanked by trees
that throw intermittent shadows across the road. And then there's driver
awareness as well, especially when drivers are driving long distances
and get a little highway hypnosis without realizing it.

DRLs are not the great bogeyman many make them out to be. I've seen just
about every excuse not to have them from their affect on fuel mileage to
the 'blinding' glare from them. Another favorite is how some cars have
the lights closer together than others, so therefore you really can't
tell how far away they are. Most of this is put forward by people who
have never spent any great amount of time driving where DRLs are used
and therefore have no true sense of the little bit of extra safety they
can provide.

[Harry K]

On Jul 14, 6:14 pm, Gil <G...@nilspam.xyz> wrote:
> On 14/07/2012 8:35 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 20:25:12 -0400, Gil<G...@nilspam.xyz>  wrote:
>
> >> On 14/07/2012 4:52 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:41:40 -0700, Patrick Scheible<k...@zipcon.net>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net">   writes:
>
> >>>>> On 7/13/2012 9:40 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> >>>>>> In article<9sh1085ad2o2etkjeh8jld0tvq94vg0...@4ax.com>,

A lot of the "glare" problem came from the idiocy of making the DRLs
use high beam. I still wonder what genius came up with that
stupidity.

Harry K

[m6onz5a]

Maryland has this law too. I actually think it's a good idea.

[Nate Nagel]

Balls. Ever see a Saturn?

[Gil]

Well, having been driving for over fifty years I suspect I have. I do
not ever recall a 'glare' problem from DRLs of any vehicle approaching
me. Further, I do not recall any vehicle with DRLs using full power high
beams. Virtually every vehicle on the road today with DRLs do not use
their main headlight system. They have separate DRL lighting systems,
and have for years. Of course, if you fixate on the lights of oncoming
vehicles then that is your problem. You get a heck of a lot more glare
on sunny days from the sun bouncing off the windows and shiny paint
surfaces than you will from DRLs.

[Nate Nagel]

I have seen it with many vehicles that use high beams for DRLs. Saturns
being the most noticeable and the absolute worst (and also they're
easily identifiable because the lights are set so closely together.)

> Further, I do not recall any vehicle with DRLs using full power high
> beams.

This much is true, but some of them are very close to full power, or at
least appear that way.

> Virtually every vehicle on the road today with DRLs do not use
> their main headlight system.

This is contrary to my experience. The majority use either low beams
(which I really don't have a problem with - but the question then
becomes, why not just manually turn on your low beams, and then you get
the conspicuity benefits of having sidemarkers and taillights as well?)
or high beams, with most of the remainder using the turn signal bulbs,
which causes other problems.

> They have separate DRL lighting systems,
> and have for years.

No they don't and no they haven't. The only exception I can think of is
GM trucks from a few years back (and maybe still?)

> Of course, if you fixate on the lights of oncoming
> vehicles then that is your problem. You get a heck of a lot more glare
> on sunny days from the sun bouncing off the windows and shiny paint
> surfaces than you will from DRLs.

In the case of some of the poorer high beam implementations (and they're
all poor,) both are true, and only one of them is aimed directly into my
eyes when the vehicle is oncoming.

[gpsman]

On Jul 15, 10:08 am, Gil <G...@nilspam.xyz> wrote:
> On 15/07/2012 8:02 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> > On 07/14/2012 09:14 PM, Gil wrote:
>
> >> I think the 'research' you've read is biased and mis-informed. DRLs do
> >> NOT produce glare.
>
> > Balls. Ever see a Saturn?
>

> Well, having been driving for over fifty years I suspect I have.

<spit take>

> I do
> not ever recall a 'glare' problem from DRLs of any vehicle approaching
> me.

Who are you going to believe, Nate Nagel, functionally illiterate k00k
and driving expert with a fistful of tickets, or your lying eyes?

> Further, I do not recall any vehicle with DRLs using full power high
> beams. Virtually every vehicle on the road today with DRLs do not use
> their main headlight system. They have separate DRL lighting systems,
> and have for years. Of course, if you fixate on the lights of oncoming
> vehicles then that is your problem. You get a heck of a lot more glare
> on sunny days from the sun bouncing off the windows and shiny paint
> surfaces than you will from DRLs.

The NHTSA received, **and responded to**, literally, 'hundreds of
complaints"... prior to 1998... so Nate must be right!
http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/1998/NHTSA+Proposes+Reduced+Glare+From+Daytime+Running+Lights+In+Motor+Vehicles
-----

- gpsman

[Nate Nagel]

Ignorant people like you are probably the reason Daniel doesn't hang out
with us anymore. NHTSA's response was inadequate, as is yours. First
of all, this does not address all of the poor implementations of DRLs
that do not meet the "new" standards that are still on the road; shame
on NHTSA for agreeing to allow the incredibly poor early implementations
in the first place. Secondly, it does not prohibit high beam
implementations, nor does it prohibit turn signal implementations, which
are two of the three most common (the other being low beams, which as
I've said, are for the most part acceptable.)

Finally, NHTSA has shown an unwillingness to mandate or even allow
"E-code" or ECE compliant headlight beam patterns which would
effectively address another major failing of theirs, the poor beam
pattern that they mandate which is a leftover from the 1940 introduction
of the 7" round sealed beam headlight. Mandating E-codes would a)
harmonize the US market with the rest of the developed world, at least
the portion that drives on the right hand side of the road, b) reduce
glare for motorists and c) improve the ability of motorists to see at night.

[gpsman]

On Jul 15, 11:30 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> On 07/15/2012 11:21 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > The NHTSA received, **and responded to**, literally, 'hundreds of
> > complaints"... prior to 1998... so Nate must be right!

> >http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/1998/NHTSA+Proposes+R...

> >
> Ignorant people like you are probably the reason Daniel doesn't hang out
> with us anymore.

Daniel Stern, the unaccredited automotive lighting expert?

> NHTSA's response was inadequate, as is yours.

I'm not finished.

>  First
> of all, this does not address all of the poor implementations of DRLs
> that do not meet the "new" standards that are still on the road;

Really? They didn't mandate a total recall of all vehicles with DRLs
due to hundreds of complaints? How odd.

> shame
> on NHTSA for agreeing to allow the incredibly poor early implementations
> in the first place.

Never bothered me.

> Secondly, it does not prohibit high beam
> implementations, nor does it prohibit turn signal implementations, which
> are two of the three most common (the other being low beams, which as
> I've said, are for the most part acceptable.)

To whom...?

> Finally, NHTSA has shown an unwillingness to mandate or even allow
> "E-code" or ECE compliant headlight beam patterns which would
> effectively address another major failing of theirs, the poor beam
> pattern that they mandate which is a leftover from the 1940 introduction
> of the 7" round sealed beam headlight.  Mandating E-codes would a)
> harmonize the US market with the rest of the developed world, at least
> the portion that drives on the right hand side of the road, b) reduce
> glare for motorists and c) improve the ability of motorists to see at night.

Yeah? How much slower and more cautiously do you motor day/night to
compensate for all that bullshit?
-----

- gpsman

[Nate Nagel]

On 07/15/2012 12:00 PM, gpsman wrote:
> On Jul 15, 11:30 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>> On 07/15/2012 11:21 AM, gpsman wrote:
>>
>>> The NHTSA received, **and responded to**, literally, 'hundreds of
>>> complaints"... prior to 1998... so Nate must be right!
>>> http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/1998/NHTSA+Proposes+R...
>>>
>> Ignorant people like you are probably the reason Daniel doesn't hang out
>> with us anymore.
>
> Daniel Stern, the unaccredited automotive lighting expert?

Before you accuse others of not being qualified to express an opinion,
you should have the credentials to pronounce yourself more qualified
than they. You don't have jack shit for credentials other than being a
known internet blowhard.

>> NHTSA's response was inadequate, as is yours.
>
> I'm not finished.

(proving your ignorance)

>> First
>> of all, this does not address all of the poor implementations of DRLs
>> that do not meet the "new" standards that are still on the road;
>
> Really? They didn't mandate a total recall of all vehicles with DRLs
> due to hundreds of complaints? How odd.

They should never have been allowed to have been built in the first place.

>> shame
>> on NHTSA for agreeing to allow the incredibly poor early implementations
>> in the first place.
>
> Never bothered me.

Because depending on what persona you're using now you were a truck
driver or a fleet manager or a car salesman (never mind that you're
clearly not qualified to be any of them)

>
>> Secondly, it does not prohibit high beam
>> implementations, nor does it prohibit turn signal implementations, which
>> are two of the three most common (the other being low beams, which as
>> I've said, are for the most part acceptable.)
>
> To whom...?

To me, which is what really matters to me. But also to those who are
real experts in the field, and/or have understood the factors at work.
It's simple logic - if low beams are not glaring to oncoming traffic at
night, then even full power (never mind reduced power) low beams
therefore are not glaring during the day or twilight.

>
>> Finally, NHTSA has shown an unwillingness to mandate or even allow
>> "E-code" or ECE compliant headlight beam patterns which would
>> effectively address another major failing of theirs, the poor beam
>> pattern that they mandate which is a leftover from the 1940 introduction
>> of the 7" round sealed beam headlight. Mandating E-codes would a)
>> harmonize the US market with the rest of the developed world, at least
>> the portion that drives on the right hand side of the road, b) reduce
>> glare for motorists and c) improve the ability of motorists to see at night.
>
> Yeah? How much slower and more cautiously do you motor day/night to
> compensate for all that bullshit?

I *do* find myself having to slow (and do the "stare at the white line"
thing, which surely isn't as safe as actually looking ahead) when
traveling on unlit 2-lanes after dark when there is oncoming traffic.
For my part, all of my personal vehicles that have been capable of being
retrofitted with E-codes have been for a decade or more, so I'm doing my
own part to improve the situation.

If you like paying more for shittier equipment, by all means, encourage
NHTSA to keep the status quo...

[Arif Khokar]

I currently use E-code assemblies in my vehicle with xenon bulbs for low
beam and halogen bulb for high-beams. Several years ago, while I was
waiting for a replacement assembly to come in, I had put the original
DOT assembly back in the drivers side.

While driving at night, it appeared that the whole driver's side of the
area illuminated by my headlamps while using the low beams was dimmed
out. It was the same when I turned the high beams on. And I was using
the same set of bulbs.
>
> nate
>

[gpsman]

On Jul 15, 12:41 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> On 07/15/2012 12:00 PM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > On Jul 15, 11:30 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> >> On 07/15/2012 11:21 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> >>> The NHTSA received, **and responded to**, literally, 'hundreds of
> >>> complaints"... prior to 1998... so Nate must be right!
> >>>http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/1998/NHTSA+Proposes+R...
>
> >> Ignorant people like you are probably the reason Daniel doesn't hang out
> >> with us anymore.
>
> > Daniel Stern, the unaccredited automotive lighting expert?
>
> Before you accuse others of not being qualified to express an opinion,
> you should have the credentials to pronounce yourself more qualified
> than they.  You don't have jack shit for credentials other than being a
> known internet blowhard.

Nice read fail. Thanks for more evidence you're functionally
illiterate.

> >> NHTSA's response was inadequate, as is yours.
>
> > I'm not finished.
>
> (proving your ignorance)

Right.

> >>   First
> >> of all, this does not address all of the poor implementations of DRLs
> >> that do not meet the "new" standards that are still on the road;
>
> > Really?  They didn't mandate a total recall of all vehicles with DRLs
> > due to hundreds of complaints?  How odd.
>
> They should never have been allowed to have been built in the first place.

Riveting analysis.

> >> shame
> >> on NHTSA for agreeing to allow the incredibly poor early implementations
> >> in the first place.
>
> > Never bothered me.
>
> Because depending on what persona you're using now you were a truck
> driver or a fleet manager or a car salesman (never mind that you're
> clearly not qualified to be any of them)

That's gibberish.

> >> Secondly, it does not prohibit high beam
> >> implementations, nor does it prohibit turn signal implementations, which
> >> are two of the three most common (the other being low beams, which as
> >> I've said, are for the most part acceptable.)
>
> > To whom...?
>
> To me, which is what really matters to me.

Uh huh...

> But also to those who are
> real experts in the field, and/or have understood the factors at work.

Horseshit. NHTSA only received hundreds of complaints.

> It's simple logic - if low beams are not glaring to oncoming traffic at
> night, then even full power (never mind reduced power) low beams
> therefore are not glaring during the day or twilight.

Be that as it may, there ain't much brouhaha over DRLs.

> >> Finally, NHTSA has shown an unwillingness to mandate or even allow
> >> "E-code" or ECE compliant headlight beam patterns which would
> >> effectively address another major failing of theirs, the poor beam
> >> pattern that they mandate which is a leftover from the 1940 introduction
> >> of the 7" round sealed beam headlight.
>

> > Yeah?  How much slower and more cautiously do you motor day/night to
> > compensate for all that bullshit?
>
> I *do* find myself having to slow (and do the "stare at the white line"
> thing, which surely isn't as safe as actually looking ahead) when
> traveling on unlit 2-lanes after dark when there is oncoming traffic.

Red herring. We've all experienced that. Do you have any evidence
that that doesn't occur in Yurrup?

What's that work out to, in mph, in expectation of being blinded at
any second by glaring DLRs in daylight conditions? 5 under the speed
limit? 10 under?

> For my part, all of my personal vehicles that have been capable of being
> retrofitted with E-codes have been for a decade or more, so I'm doing my
> own part to improve the situation.

You're doing something for the economy, anyway. Your headlights cost
more than the poorly maintained shitboxes in which you put them are
worth, by weight.

> If you like paying more for shittier equipment, by all means, encourage
> NHTSA to keep the status quo...

Pity the NHTSA doesn't have any experts, they just pull their specs
from their asses. It seems odd you'd have any problem with that.
-----

- gpsman

[Nate Nagel]

On 07/15/2012 01:29 PM, gpsman wrote:

> Pity the NHTSA doesn't have any experts, they just pull their specs
> from their asses.

Unless you're being sarcastic, that's the truest statement I've heard
you say. And no wonder that you tend to side with them instead of the
actual experts.

[gpsman]

On Jul 15, 1:36 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> On 07/15/2012 01:29 PM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > Pity the NHTSA doesn't have any experts, they just pull their specs
> > from their asses.
>
> Unless you're being sarcastic, that's the truest statement I've heard
> you say.

Of course you think so, there's no evidence to support it.

> And no wonder that you tend to side with them instead of the
> actual experts.

I always side with the evidence. All you have provided is your opinion
and what you purport to be the opinions of "actual experts", which I
don't think you have the expertise to distinguish from a fart.

The evidence suggests there are few if any credible complaints such as
yours. 10,000 complaints wouldn't be enough to suggest they aren't
primarily from k00ks such as yourself.

No one seems to be operating more slowly or cautiously expecting to be
blinded at any second, day or night, including you and me.

How do you explain that?
-----

- gpsman

[Nick Naim]

"Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
news:num308pnnasfa4imi...@4ax.com...

ditto third brake light
on some cars the third brake light is almost on the same plane as the tail
lights

[Nick Naim]

"Gil" <G...@nilspam.xyz> wrote in message
news:dvGdnb16_r_uhJ_N...@giganews.com...

You havnt been out here enough driving enough
Apply the 12 second line of sight rule and you should not have any problems
out here DRL,s or not

[Nick Naim]

"Harry K" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:05901ea6-883b-47ae...@l6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

right
when you are pulling out from a street to another street ect you dont look
for DRL,s you are looking for METAL

[Nick Naim]

"m6onz5a" <cor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c4180e9c-1072-46e7...@v34g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

Another good idea is perhaps head lights should turn when the turn signal is
activated.

[Arif Khokar]

On 7/14/2012 8:10 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

> Virginia is dumb like that. Speed limit on I-81 (and now other
> highways?) is 70, but 80 MPH gets you a "reckless driving" ticket.

It's also 70 mph on I-66 west of Centreville (maybe another 5 to 10 mph
further). It's also 70 mph on I-64 once east of Charlottesville IIRC.
I don't know about I-95 though.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 7/14/2012 8:45 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 07/14/2012 08:16 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article <jtqoun$94c$3...@dont-email.me>, Tom $herman (-_-) <""> wrote:
>>> On 7/13/2012 1:22 AM, Arklin K. wrote:
>>>> In another thread, we were discussing crazy California laws and I
>>>> got to
>>>> wondering what crazy laws are in your state or country.
>>>>
>>> On the other hand, California is the only state in the US sensible
>>> enough to allow filtering on a scooter/motorcycle.
>>
>> Filtering?
>> --scott
>>
>
> I believe that that's PC for "lane-splitting."
>

Filtering is the term normally used - at least by people from the right
side of the pond. More logical term than "lane-splitting", certainly.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 7/13/2012 11:24 PM, Harry K wrote:
> On Jul 13, 8:24 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>> On 7/13/2012 7:44 AM, Arif Khokar wrote:

>>
>>> On 7/13/2012 2:22 AM, Arklin K. wrote:
>>>> In another thread, we were discussing crazy California laws and I got to
>>>> wondering what crazy laws are in your state or country.
>>

>>> 1. Driving more than 75 or 80 mph on most interstates is considered
>>> reckless driving
>>> [...]
>>
>> 75 mph is only 5-mph over the legal limit on rural freeways here in Iowa.
>>
>
> And 5 mph over with posted at 70 is well within the usual 'allowance'
> before ticketing.

I was told by a Colorado State Patrolman back in the mid 1980's that
they did not normally ticket for less than 7-mph over the limit.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 7/13/2012 11:27 PM, Harry K wrote:

> On Jul 13, 6:25 pm, bri...@panix.com (Brian Gordon) wrote:
>> In article <9sh1085ad2o2etkjeh8jld0tvq94vg0...@4ax.com>,

>> Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Arklin K."

>>> <ark...@notmyemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> In another thread, we were discussing crazy California laws and I got to
>>>> wondering what crazy laws are in your state or country.
>>

>>> In NY and at least one or two other eastern states, they mandate that
>>> you MUST have your headlights on anytime you use your wipers.
>>

>> True in at least NC and SC. I don't see anything crazy about it, though. Most cars, except for the cops, seem to comply.
>>
> Sorta OT. Was an article in the auto section of my newspaper
> recently. Discussion of about DRLs. Oddly what was never mentioned
> as to why people didn't like them:
>
> The stupidity of making them the high beam.
>
> Harry K
>
I thought it was just Saturn that used high-beam DRL's (along with
putting the headlights close together, making the car appear farther
away than it actually is at night)? At least I have only noticed the
annoying glare from Saturn DRL's.

As a motorcyclist, I hate the idea of DRL's on cars.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

Plus they make it easier for idiot cagers to miss motorcyclists.

(Now if only people with loud pipes were run over, that could be
considered a good thing).

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

The BMW K1600 GT and K1600 GTL can be equipped (as an option) with the
"adaptive headlight" system that adjusts the aim of the lights for pitch
and roll.

[Harry K]

On Jul 15, 4:47 pm, "Nick Naim" <orb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "Harry K" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Which the DRLs call your attention to. There is a distinct benefit
for running with lights on in daytime but low beam only.

Thinking back the only "glare" I can recall were always the blue light
ones.

Harry K.

[Jim Yanik]

"Nick Naim" <orb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:CLSdneFe0de2zp7N...@earthlink.com:

heh,so much for the "center HIGH MOUNTED stop light"...
I don't know how the MFGs get away with a CHMSL that's so low.

If they actually are high mounted,they are of some help.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[N8N]

On Jul 15, 10:58 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

Saturns are by far the worst, but I have seen apparent high beam
implementations on many vehicles, including some that I think to
myself "they should know better" like BMW (e.g. circa Y2Kish 3-series)
as well as some others... Was stopped at a light on the way to work
this morning and because this thread had come up I was paying
attention to the DRL position, most of the oncoming vehicles had high
beam DRLs, I specifically noticed a GM pickup truck (stacked
headlights, lower lights in stack lit) and a Toyota something or other
car... this wasn't inadvertant headlight/high beam use because
parking lights were not lit.

nate

[jgar the jorrible]

On Jul 15, 7:53 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

There is a difference between lane-splitting and lane-sharing, in Cali
the former is illegal and the latter is legal. In a practical sense,
riding between cars forces you to split, but the LEO's will normally
leave you alone as long as you don't look like a nutcase. And I've
been startled by ChiPpies on their bimmers hitting the ABS at high
speed through stopped freeway traffic like total nutcases. The term
"doored" should be self-explanatory.

> On 7/14/2012 3:52 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> DRLs are just a distracting nuisance. They produce glare. They are
>> not needed. There is no valid research showing any long term
>> benefits.

The real problem is they are useful for two lane roads in Canada but
effing stupid where LA is just one big freeway. In other words, a
single standard is over-simplified.

> Plus they make it easier for idiot cagers to miss motorcyclists.

Not sure I quite understand that, but I must take this opportunity to
once again complain about motorcyclists riding with their brights on.
Come on, people, painfully bright lights make people look _away_ from
you when you want them to be looking _for_ you!

Bright lights from motos or cages in side view mirrors are dangerously
distracting in any event.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Random acid spill. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jul/16/traffic-alert-miramar-after-truck-crash/

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 7/16/2012 11:38 AM, jgar the jorrible wrote:
> On Jul 15, 7:53 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>> On 7/14/2012 8:45 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>>>> On the other hand, California is the only state in the US sensible
>>>>> enough to allow filtering on a scooter/motorcycle.
>>
>>>> Filtering?
>>>> --scott
>>
>>> I believe that that's PC for "lane-splitting."
>>
>> Filtering is the term normally used - at least by people from the right
>> side of the pond. More logical term than "lane-splitting", certainly.
>
> There is a difference between lane-splitting and lane-sharing, in Cali
> the former is illegal and the latter is legal. In a practical sense,
> riding between cars forces you to split, but the LEO's will normally
> leave you alone as long as you don't look like a nutcase. And I've
> been startled by ChiPpies on their bimmers hitting the ABS at high
> speed through stopped freeway traffic like total nutcases. The term
> "doored" should be self-explanatory.
>

I had a Milwaukee cop on an Electra-Glide pull up beside me in the
~4-foot wide space between the white line and concrete barrier on the
High-Rise, while traffic was in the 55-mph range. Pretty stupid.

Of course, then there is this:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuZsRxuEpZs&feature=player_embedded>.

>> On 7/14/2012 3:52 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>> DRLs are just a distracting nuisance. They produce glare. They are
>>> not needed. There is no valid research showing any long term
>>> benefits.
>
> The real problem is they are useful for two lane roads in Canada but
> effing stupid where LA is just one big freeway. In other words, a
> single standard is over-simplified.
>
>> Plus they make it easier for idiot cagers to miss motorcyclists.
>
> Not sure I quite understand that, but I must take this opportunity to
> once again complain about motorcyclists riding with their brights on.
> Come on, people, painfully bright lights make people look _away_ from
> you when you want them to be looking _for_ you!
>

In the US, all street certified motorcycles have had the headlight(s)
automatically on since sometime in the 1970's (no off-on switch, just a
low-high beam switch). If only motorcycles have lights on in the day,
that makes them more distinctive, than if a bunch of the (obviously)
much larger cages also have headlights on.

> Bright lights from motos or cages in side view mirrors are dangerously
> distracting in any event.

Or low-beams on any stock Ford F-150 that looks like this:
<http://www.alpinemotorswyoming.com/upload/1990-Ford-F150-4x4.JPG>.

[gpsman]

On Jul 16, 9:03 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net"> wrote:
>
> If only motorcycles have lights on in the day,
> that makes them more distinctive, than if a bunch of the (obviously)
> much larger cages also have headlights on.

If every passenger vehicle had DRLs the typical semi-conscious
motorist might mistake a bike for a car instead of "looking" and
seeing an empty road.
-----

- gpsman

[Snag]

Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net wrote:
>>
> In the US, all street certified motorcycles have had the headlight(s)
> automatically on since sometime in the 1970's (no off-on switch, just
> a low-high beam switch).

Nope . you're wrong on that one . My '76 FLH , '88 XL1200 , and my current
'90 FLHTCU all had/have switchable headlights . First detent on the
key/switch is ignition /no lights , second is ignition/lights , 3rd is "aux"
.
--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

Uh, motorcycles, not Harleys.

Flame away!

[jgar the jorrible]

On Jul 16, 6:03 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

Oh, now I get it. Squishier the target, brighter the decoration.
Perfectly sensible, except maybe for the rural two lane road case,
where any head-on won't end well.

My '73 Kawasaki had that. The battery shorted out one moonless night
when I was doing 55 on an unlighted rural road near Isla Vista,
causing the generator to blow out all the lights and the engine to
die. Funny how those things happen after the warranty runs out.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.

http://www.10news.com/news/31279853/detail.html
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jul/17/mens-dies-after-being-hit-and-dragged-truck/

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:30:13 -0400, Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net>

wrote:

>On 07/15/2012 11:21 AM, gpsman wrote:

>> On Jul 15, 10:08 am, Gil <G...@nilspam.xyz> wrote:
>>> On 15/07/2012 8:02 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>> On 07/14/2012 09:14 PM, Gil wrote:
>>>

>>>>> I think the 'research' you've read is biased and mis-informed. DRLs do
>>>>> NOT produce glare.
>>>

>>>> Balls. Ever see a Saturn?
>>>
>>> Well, having been driving for over fifty years I suspect I have.
>>
>> <spit take>
>>
>>> I do
>>> not ever recall a 'glare' problem from DRLs of any vehicle approaching
>>> me.
>>
>> Who are you going to believe, Nate Nagel, functionally illiterate k00k
>> and driving expert with a fistful of tickets, or your lying eyes?
>>
>>> Further, I do not recall any vehicle with DRLs using full power high
>>> beams. Virtually every vehicle on the road today with DRLs do not use
>>> their main headlight system. They have separate DRL lighting systems,
>>> and have for years. Of course, if you fixate on the lights of oncoming
>>> vehicles then that is your problem. You get a heck of a lot more glare
>>> on sunny days from the sun bouncing off the windows and shiny paint
>>> surfaces than you will from DRLs.
>>

>> The NHTSA received, **and responded to**, literally, 'hundreds of
>> complaints"... prior to 1998... so Nate must be right!

>> http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/1998/NHTSA+Proposes+Reduced+Glare+From+Daytime+Running+Lights+In+Motor+Vehicles
>> -----
>>
>> - gpsman

>>
>
>Ignorant people like you are probably the reason Daniel doesn't hang out

>with us anymore. NHTSA's response was inadequate, as is yours. First

>of all, this does not address all of the poor implementations of DRLs

>that do not meet the "new" standards that are still on the road; shame

>on NHTSA for agreeing to allow the incredibly poor early implementations

>in the first place. Secondly, it does not prohibit high beam

>implementations, nor does it prohibit turn signal implementations, which
>are two of the three most common (the other being low beams, which as
>I've said, are for the most part acceptable.)
>

>Finally, NHTSA has shown an unwillingness to mandate or even allow
>"E-code" or ECE compliant headlight beam patterns which would
>effectively address another major failing of theirs, the poor beam
>pattern that they mandate which is a leftover from the 1940 introduction

>of the 7" round sealed beam headlight. Mandating E-codes would a)
>harmonize the US market with the rest of the developed world, at least
>the portion that drives on the right hand side of the road, b) reduce
>glare for motorists and c) improve the ability of motorists to see at night.
>

>nate

I don't know if E-code is the cause but after riding in my brother in
laws BMW, which has low beams with extremely sharp cutoffs I am no
longer a fan of that kind of design. The cut off is so sharp that it
provides Zero illumination to anything on the road or side of the road
more then a couple hundred feet ahead. It makes it exceptionally
likely that you will not see an animal or pedestrian on the road till
you are so close to them that it's almost impossible to avoid them.
Also did not illuminate the signs till you were almost on top of them.

[Ashton Crusher]

The MC issues goes to the heart of the bad research people use to
support their DRL love. When DRL's were first instituted and it was
RARE for a car to have it's lights on during the day people naturally
took notice of that oddball idiot who was driving around with his
headlights on. Consequently accidents involving DRL equipped cars
went down. What was not measured of course was whether those
distracted by DRL drivers accident involvement went up, it probably
did since they were looking at the DRL car instead of what was going
on around them. Once DRL's become ubiquitous and the novelty is gone
they just become more "noise" in the driving environment and the magic
safety benefit disappears. If I put several spinning pinwheels atop
cars and then studied the "safety benefit" of equipping all cars with
spinning pinwheels I have no doubt that the research would show a
great safety benefit. But only a fool would think that if all cars
had spinning pinwheels on them it would make us all safer. Or if you
really like flashing colored lights we could put police light bars on
all cars, wired to run anytime the car is moving, surely that would
make the whole driving environment SOOooooo much safer.

[N8N]

On Jul 17, 3:19 pm, Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:30:13 -0400, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 07/15/2012 11:21 AM, gpsman wrote:
> >> On Jul 15, 10:08 am, Gil <G...@nilspam.xyz> wrote:
> >>> On 15/07/2012 8:02 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> >>>> On 07/14/2012 09:14 PM, Gil wrote:
>
> >>>>> I think the 'research' you've read is biased and mis-informed. DRLs do
> >>>>> NOT produce glare.
>
> >>>> Balls. Ever see a Saturn?
>
> >>> Well, having been driving for over fifty years I suspect I have.
>
> >> <spit take>
>
> >>> I do
> >>> not ever recall a 'glare' problem from DRLs of any vehicle approaching
> >>> me.
>
> >> Who are you going to believe, Nate Nagel, functionally illiterate k00k
> >> and driving expert with a fistful of tickets, or your lying eyes?
>
> >>>   Further, I do not recall any vehicle with DRLs using full power high
> >>> beams. Virtually every vehicle on the road today with DRLs do not use
> >>> their main headlight system. They have separate DRL lighting systems,
> >>> and have for years. Of course, if you fixate on the lights of oncoming
> >>> vehicles then that is your problem. You get a heck of a lot more glare
> >>> on sunny days from the sun bouncing off the windows and shiny paint
> >>> surfaces than you will from DRLs.
>
> >> The NHTSA received, **and responded to**, literally, 'hundreds of
> >> complaints"... prior to 1998... so Nate must be right!

> >>http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/1998/NHTSA+Proposes+R...

Sounds like a "harmonized" beam pattern not a true E-code. E-codes
have a sharp kickup to the right for the purpose of illuminating
roadside signs, deer, other random fuzzies. Overhead signs are the
one notable drawback of the E-code design but in practice I have not
found it to be such, not the least because non-illuminated overhead
signs are very rare at least in any areas that I drive. Even so
unless it is a truly pitch black moonless night. It sounds also like
your BIL's headlights might have been adjusted down a little too
much? And with E-codes, if you are alone on the road, you really do
need to use your brights (but that's OK, because all the ones I've
tried have been fantastic, even with the normal 60W bulbs.)

nate

[Arif Khokar]

On 7/17/2012 3:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> I don't know if E-code is the cause but after riding in my brother in
> laws BMW, which has low beams with extremely sharp cutoffs I am no
> longer a fan of that kind of design.

He probably had a VOL cutoff instead of the more typical Z or upsweep
cutoff (that are typical with E-code headlamps). VOL typically, but not
necessarily, has a low cutoff on the right as well (as shown below)

______.-------

IME, they pretty much give you very little upward light towards the
offside. Also, IIRC, the typical DOT light distribution puts more of it
towards the cutoff and less towards the road itself. That leads to more
glare and less light on the road itself (making everything appear to be
dimmer--believe me, I've compared DOT and E-code lights side by side in
the same car with the same set of bulbs).

My e-codes have a cutoff more like this.

.--------
_____/

Where the height difference between the left and right side of the
cutoff increases as the distance from the car increases (to a certain
extent).

> The cut off is so sharp that it
> provides Zero illumination to anything on the road or side of the road
> more then a couple hundred feet ahead.

His headlights were not aimed properly. If the horizontal axis of the
headlamp is 2 feet off the ground, they should light the road up for
about 200 feet ahead with the left side of the cutoff (assuming a 3 inch
drop for every 25 feet of distance). A 2.1 inch drop per 25 feet
(according to the VOL aiming spec would result in a forward illumination
distance of about 285 feet.

In any case, if the right side of the cutoff was like it was with my
E-codes, it would illuminate much further out.

> It makes it exceptionally
> likely that you will not see an animal or pedestrian on the road till
> you are so close to them that it's almost impossible to avoid them.
> Also did not illuminate the signs till you were almost on top of them.

That's par for the course with typical shitty FMVSS 108 compliant headlamps.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:20:58 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njn...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

These had the sharp kick up to the right.

-------------/'''''''''''''

^^best I can do ^^ but it really angles up at the kick, not just flat.

[hachiroku]

Check the current batch of Audis and other Euro cars with the REALLY
BRIGHT LEDs. They turn OFF on the side the turn signal turns ON.

Cool idea.

[N8N]

On Jul 18, 1:04 am, hachiroku <hacir...@e86.GTS> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:53:23 -0400, Nick Naim wrote:
>

> > "m6onz5a" <corv...@comcast.net> wrote in message

I like that insofar as the lights are still separate from and a
different color from the directionals. I'm ASSuming that the reason
that they turn off when the directionals are active is to make sure
that oncoming traffic sees the directionals. Seems commonsensical
that it would provide a safety benefit, wonder if it actually works
that way in practice?

nate

[hachiroku]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:22:35 +0000, Arklin K. wrote:

> In another thread, we were discussing crazy California laws and I got to
> wondering what crazy laws are in your state or country.

Massachusetts, as of the 70's still had a law on the books that you had to
have someone running 10 feet in front of you warning "Automobile!
Automobile!"

[hachiroku]

Oh yeah! It works very well on the AUDIs I have seen it implemented on.

[Josh]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njn...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I know our 2006 Toyota Highlander uses dimmed high beams as the DRLs
-- in our garage the cutoff of the DRLs just happens to line up with a
seam on the wall when in the perfect position, but if the regular
low-beam lights are on, you hit the wall before the lights line up so
have to remember to turn them off when entering the garage at night
:-)

And I'm pretty sure my 2007 Civic is the same, but the parking
indicator is on the side for that car so not as obvious from inside
the car.

Those Saturn DRLs were extremely annoying; I suspect those cars that
use high beams dim them more now, as I don't notice the glare as much.
Josh

[N8N]

On Jul 19, 6:48 pm, Josh <no_need_to_s...@nobody.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT), N8N <njna...@hotmail.com>

I'm sure you're right, due to the revised regs that gpsman alluded to
in one of his posts. I still just am opposed to the concept of using
the high beams as DRLs on principle because of the possibility of
increased glare. However, I think that it is likely more attractive
to mfgrs. as they don't have to provide dedicated lights, and they are
resistant to using reduced power low beams for DRLs as they are
worried about customer complaints due to decreased headlamp bulb life
(the lows are almost always the filaments that get the most usage,
unless you live in a very rural area, so they're the ones that are
going to burn out first.)

That said my '02 GTI used low beam DRLs and I didn't replace a single
bulb of any kind the entire time I owned the vehicle. I think the
only lighting modification I did was to install a Euro headlight
switch to get the parking lamp position (was actually rather important
at the time, as I didn't have a company car but had to visit various
government/military bases for work occasionally, and they don't like
it when you roll up to a guard shack and don't turn your headlights
off.) Never did get around to enabling the rear fog light.

nate

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 7/20/2012 8:49 AM, N8N wrote:
> That said my '02 GTI used low beam DRLs and I didn't replace a single
> bulb of any kind the entire time I owned the vehicle. I think the
> only lighting modification I did was to install a Euro headlight
> switch to get the parking lamp position (was actually rather important
> at the time, as I didn't have a company car but had to visit various
> government/military bases for work occasionally, and they don't like
> it when you roll up to a guard shack and don't turn your headlights
> off.) Never did get around to enabling the rear fog light.

I thought most DRL's would shut off if the parking brake was set?

[jgar the jorrible]

On Jul 26, 9:02 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

True, but the TURN OFF HEADLIGHTS is usually before you stop.

The gummint rules can be quite different than the state the facility
is in. One time my Corvette club went to an event on Camp Pendleton,
which (at the time, anyways) had a rule against running lights under
the car. One guy had running lights under the car on, MP's going the
other way saw it, turned around, and pulled over another guy with a
very similar car. They couldn't figure it out.

I also worked there for several years, it would have been a perfect
commute for my bike (Yamaha Vision), but they required a 3 day safety
course, and I wasn't about to use up my vacation for it.

Another base I worked on, we had a department luncheon off base one
day. One of the gummint managers had just bought a new Corvette, and
switched a temporary pass from another car. When we came back from
lunch, the MP at the gate spotted it, and they all surrounded the car,
guns pointing and ready. The guy was lucky his boss was in the car
behind, it still was a big deal. I could understand wanting to short
the system, when I had gotten my pass, I had to sit there for an
entire day, since they order by rank, and I was a contractor, aka pond-
scum in that ranking. Even being paid, I could hardly tolerate just
sitting there doing nothing. Your tax dollars at work.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jul/26/mom-whose-naked-daughter-was-found-in-car-is-charg/

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 7/27/2012 1:33 PM, jgar the jorrible wrote:
> On Jul 26, 9:02 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>> On 7/20/2012 8:49 AM, N8N wrote:
>>
>>> That said my '02 GTI used low beam DRLs and I didn't replace a single
>>> bulb of any kind the entire time I owned the vehicle. I think the
>>> only lighting modification I did was to install a Euro headlight
>>> switch to get the parking lamp position (was actually rather important
>>> at the time, as I didn't have a company car but had to visit various
>>> government/military bases for work occasionally, and they don't like
>>> it when you roll up to a guard shack and don't turn your headlights
>>> off.) Never did get around to enabling the rear fog light.
>>
>> I thought most DRL's would shut off if the parking brake was set?
>>
>

> True, but the TURN OFF HEADLIGHTS is usually before you stop.[...]
>
On many vehicles, one "click" of parking brake application is enough to
turn the DRLs off, but not significantly apply the parking brakes. Even
if the brakes are slightly applied, it would not be a big deal for a
couple hundred feet at low speed.

> I also worked there for several years, it would have been a perfect
> commute for my bike (Yamaha Vision), but they required a 3 day safety
> course, and I wasn't about to use up my vacation for it.

>[...]

Uh, some of us happily use our vacation time for riding classes. Track
school is particularly fun.

Of course, those who do not think they need a riding class are usually
the ones who need it most.