Ping: DS or anyone concerned with glare issues

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Listen to this loonybird. He speeds and drives drunk every day of his
> life and then complains about how unsafe it is for busdrivers to drive
> with their lights on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He said high beams, which are indeed blindingly bright and a safety concern.
Who is the "looneybird" now?

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> hey Daniel, woud you be interested in helping me with a little matter
> that's been bothering me? (see .sig for email unmunging directions) Let
> me know what's a good email address to keep in touch
>
> what this is about, for Daniel or anyone else that's interested, I'm
> trying to draft a complaint to WMATA (DC transit authority) about the
> widespread practice of Metro buses driving around with their high beams on
> 24/7. I have no confirmation yet but the practice seems to be so
> universal that I can only assume that it's a misguided "safety"
> initiative. Bothersome at all hours and truly dangerous in the late
> evening. I'd like to have some cites to throw back as to why this is
> dangerous (other than the fact that it's blatantly obvious) when I get the
> inevitable response that it is indeed a safety policy.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

It used to be illegal in most (maybe all) state laws to drive with the
brights on in traffic. NHTSA rules that tie back to the voluntary use to
allow brights as DRLs trumps state laws. So much for state's rights, I
suppose. You may want to make a comment to docket 17243 at
http://dms.dot.gov/ and tell them about your experience.

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> hey Daniel, woud you be interested in helping me with a little matter
> that's been bothering me? (see .sig for email unmunging directions) Let
> me know what's a good email address to keep in touch
>
> what this is about, for Daniel or anyone else that's interested, I'm
> trying to draft a complaint to WMATA (DC transit authority) about the
> widespread practice of Metro buses driving around with their high beams on
> 24/7. I have no confirmation yet but the practice seems to be so
> universal that I can only assume that it's a misguided "safety"
> initiative. Bothersome at all hours and truly dangerous in the late
> evening. I'd like to have some cites to throw back as to why this is
> dangerous (other than the fact that it's blatantly obvious) when I get the
> inevitable response that it is indeed a safety policy.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

It used to be illegal in most (maybe all) state laws to drive with the
brights on in traffic. NHTSA rules that tie back to the voluntary use to
allow brights as DRLs trumps state laws. So much for state's rights, I
suppose. You may want to make a comment to docket 17243 at
http://dms.dot.gov/ and tell them about your experience.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Nate Nagel wrote:

> Let me know what's a good email address to keep in touch

Via the website, http://www.danielsternlighting.com

> what this is about, for Daniel or anyone else that's interested, I'm
> trying to draft a complaint to WMATA (DC transit authority) about the
> widespread practice of Metro buses driving around with their high beams
> on 24/7. I have no confirmation yet but the practice seems to be so
> universal that I can only assume that it's a misguided "safety"
> initiative.

I see it all the time on school buses, too. Yes, it's a misguided "safety"
initiative with these bus companies and transit organizations, just as it
is when motorcyclists do it. It's one of those "more must be better" ideas
that makes sense to those with no understanding of the matter, and it
tends to get amplified and repeated by associations and advocacy groups
loudly and often enough that people start to believe it despite there
being zero factual or scientific basis for the practice.

> I'd like to have some cites to throw back as to why this is dangerous
> (other than the fact that it's blatantly obvious) when I get the
> inevitable response that it is indeed a safety policy.

Well, lessee here. Frank Schieber, who heads the National Academy of
Sciences Transportation Research Board Visibility Committee, did a study
on DRL intensity vis-a-vis disabling glare a couple years ago, and if I
remember that study correctly, its conclusions could easily be used to
shove full-high-beams-all-times right up the asses of those who practice
it. The UMTRI library should be able to furnish it.

Send me e-mail,

DS

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Nate Nagel wrote:

> Let me know what's a good email address to keep in touch

Via the website, http://www.danielsternlighting.com

> what this is about, for Daniel or anyone else that's interested, I'm
> trying to draft a complaint to WMATA (DC transit authority) about the
> widespread practice of Metro buses driving around with their high beams
> on 24/7. I have no confirmation yet but the practice seems to be so
> universal that I can only assume that it's a misguided "safety"
> initiative.

I see it all the time on school buses, too. Yes, it's a misguided "safety"
initiative with these bus companies and transit organizations, just as it
is when motorcyclists do it. It's one of those "more must be better" ideas
that makes sense to those with no understanding of the matter, and it
tends to get amplified and repeated by associations and advocacy groups
loudly and often enough that people start to believe it despite there
being zero factual or scientific basis for the practice.

> I'd like to have some cites to throw back as to why this is dangerous
> (other than the fact that it's blatantly obvious) when I get the
> inevitable response that it is indeed a safety policy.

Well, lessee here. Frank Schieber, who heads the National Academy of
Sciences Transportation Research Board Visibility Committee, did a study
on DRL intensity vis-a-vis disabling glare a couple years ago, and if I
remember that study correctly, its conclusions could easily be used to
shove full-high-beams-all-times right up the asses of those who practice
it. The UMTRI library should be able to furnish it.

Send me e-mail,

DS

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:

>what this is about, for Daniel or anyone else that's interested, I'm
>trying to draft a complaint to WMATA (DC transit authority) about the
>widespread practice of Metro buses driving around with their high beams
>on 24/7.

Forget complaining. Just find a bad area of DC and shoot them out as
they go by.

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:

>what this is about, for Daniel or anyone else that's interested, I'm
>trying to draft a complaint to WMATA (DC transit authority) about the
>widespread practice of Metro buses driving around with their high beams
>on 24/7.

Forget complaining. Just find a bad area of DC and shoot them out as
they go by.

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Ulf wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> hey Daniel, woud you be interested in helping me with a little matter
>>> that's been bothering me? (see .sig for email unmunging directions)
>>> Let me know what's a good email address to keep in touch
>>>
>>> what this is about, for Daniel or anyone else that's interested, I'm
>>> trying to draft a complaint to WMATA (DC transit authority) about the
>>> widespread practice of Metro buses driving around with their high
>>> beams on 24/7. I have no confirmation yet but the practice seems to
>>> be so universal that I can only assume that it's a misguided "safety"
>>> initiative. Bothersome at all hours and truly dangerous in the late
>>> evening. I'd like to have some cites to throw back as to why this is
>>> dangerous (other than the fact that it's blatantly obvious) when I
>>> get the inevitable response that it is indeed a safety policy.
>>
>>
>>
>> High beams at night in traffic, safety policy? Seriously...
>
>
> I haven't seen any buses on the road at actual, pitch-black night (I
> live fairly well away from the city) but I did have one follow me on US
> 50 when it was dark enough that I was blind from behind - and I don't
> mean "the sun is starting to set" dark, I mean "the sky is really,
> really dark purple, just not black" dark.

Why didn't you just use your rear fog light, that's why it's there. I
assume, of course, you were driving one of your German cars.

>
>>
>> Hopefully they at least drive on the right side of the road, unlike
>> here. Hit a bus two days ago when driver decided it was perfectly fine
>> to drive 3 ft over the center line despite oncoming traffic (me and
>> two other cars)... Fortunatly, the only damage was a couple of
>> scratches on the mirror, but had its headlights not been so damn
>> glaring I might actually have seen how far over it was and taken
>> evasive action.
>>
>
> I haven't seen that, but they do seem to like to pull out into traffic
> and change lanes whenever they damned well feel like it, as if their
> directional signal is an official traffic control device. But that's
> only a few, whereas the headlight thing seems to be universal.

That's a common occurrence here. I usually respond by laying on the horn
and flashing my brights, not that it helps though...

Good luck with the headlight thing, you'll need it even with Daniel by
your side.

>
> nate
>
Ulf

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Ulf wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> hey Daniel, woud you be interested in helping me with a little matter
>>> that's been bothering me? (see .sig for email unmunging directions)
>>> Let me know what's a good email address to keep in touch
>>>
>>> what this is about, for Daniel or anyone else that's interested, I'm
>>> trying to draft a complaint to WMATA (DC transit authority) about the
>>> widespread practice of Metro buses driving around with their high
>>> beams on 24/7. I have no confirmation yet but the practice seems to
>>> be so universal that I can only assume that it's a misguided "safety"
>>> initiative. Bothersome at all hours and truly dangerous in the late
>>> evening. I'd like to have some cites to throw back as to why this is
>>> dangerous (other than the fact that it's blatantly obvious) when I
>>> get the inevitable response that it is indeed a safety policy.
>>
>>
>>
>> High beams at night in traffic, safety policy? Seriously...
>
>
> I haven't seen any buses on the road at actual, pitch-black night (I
> live fairly well away from the city) but I did have one follow me on US
> 50 when it was dark enough that I was blind from behind - and I don't
> mean "the sun is starting to set" dark, I mean "the sky is really,
> really dark purple, just not black" dark.

Why didn't you just use your rear fog light, that's why it's there. I
assume, of course, you were driving one of your German cars.

>
>>
>> Hopefully they at least drive on the right side of the road, unlike
>> here. Hit a bus two days ago when driver decided it was perfectly fine
>> to drive 3 ft over the center line despite oncoming traffic (me and
>> two other cars)... Fortunatly, the only damage was a couple of
>> scratches on the mirror, but had its headlights not been so damn
>> glaring I might actually have seen how far over it was and taken
>> evasive action.
>>
>
> I haven't seen that, but they do seem to like to pull out into traffic
> and change lanes whenever they damned well feel like it, as if their
> directional signal is an official traffic control device. But that's
> only a few, whereas the headlight thing seems to be universal.

That's a common occurrence here. I usually respond by laying on the horn
and flashing my brights, not that it helps though...

Good luck with the headlight thing, you'll need it even with Daniel by
your side.

>
> nate
>
Ulf

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:

> It used to be illegal in most (maybe all) state laws to drive with the
> brights on in traffic.

It's illegal in most (maybe all) states to do a lot of **** that a lot of
people do in most (maybe all) states.