A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ping: DS or anyone concerned with glare issues



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 19th 04, 03:19 AM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

Ads
  #22  
Old December 19th 04, 05:45 PM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> 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.
>


True...but that snippet of my post was a lead-up to the main point. NHTSA
rules allowing high beams to be suitable as DRLs effectively trumped that
law. From my perspective, it essentially made driving around with the high
beams illuminated legal (or at least made the law somewhat ambiguous to make
enforcement difficult). The definition of "on" isn't defined. Half output
as used in a typical DRL mean on? Or, does only full output mean "on"?
Since the lay only differentiates on or off and highbeam DRL's are
legal.....how to enforce the laws making "old" full bright brights illegal?!


  #23  
Old December 19th 04, 05:45 PM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> 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.
>


True...but that snippet of my post was a lead-up to the main point. NHTSA
rules allowing high beams to be suitable as DRLs effectively trumped that
law. From my perspective, it essentially made driving around with the high
beams illuminated legal (or at least made the law somewhat ambiguous to make
enforcement difficult). The definition of "on" isn't defined. Half output
as used in a typical DRL mean on? Or, does only full output mean "on"?
Since the lay only differentiates on or off and highbeam DRL's are
legal.....how to enforce the laws making "old" full bright brights illegal?!


  #24  
Old December 19th 04, 06:08 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:

> NHTSA rules allowing high beams to be suitable as DRLs effectively
> trumped that law.


Naw, they didn't. What they did was make it that much harder for cops to
discern legal high beams in traffic (DRLs) from illegal high beams in
traffic (assholes). Just like they can't realistically tell the difference
between legal blue bulbs or factory HIDs, and illegal blue bulbs and HID
"retrofits".

> (or at least made the law somewhat ambiguous to make enforcement
> difficult).


Yep, that's it exactly.

> The definition of "on" isn't defined.


Actually, that's an even better point. According to NHTSA's chief lighting
rulemaker, the US DRL spec requires that the DRLs turn off when the
headlamp switch is in *ANY "ON" POSITION*, including "parking lamps". But
Canada requires the DRLs to be on even if the parking lamps are on, unless
the _headlamps_ are also on. Since DRLs are required in Canada, the
carmakers who sell DRL-equipped cars in the US wire 'em up Canada-spec.
GM's the main offender, NHTSA is aware of the problem, and has brought it
to the attention of GM, and GM responds "We'll try not to do it in
future".

Meanwhile, the beginnings of a mandatory-DRL law are bubbling at NHTSA,
and they're looking at ways of satisfying the need to be able to defeat
the DRLs for temporary purposes (e.g. driving onto a military base).
They're thinking of requiring a timed-defeat button which, when pressed,
turns off the DRLs for a predetermined time or distance.

Apparently the notion of actually enforcing their own rules upon the
automakers is not a workable solution.

> Since the lay only differentiates on or off and highbeam DRL's are
> legal.....how to enforce the laws making "old" full bright brights
> illegal?!


Well, that's the other problem, is that the "anything goes" DRL spec has
grossly worsened misuse of lights. Time was, you would alert someone their
high beams were on and they'd say "Oops...thanks." Nowtimes, you do the
same thing and they say "So? All the new cars use them all the time."


  #25  
Old December 19th 04, 06:08 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:

> NHTSA rules allowing high beams to be suitable as DRLs effectively
> trumped that law.


Naw, they didn't. What they did was make it that much harder for cops to
discern legal high beams in traffic (DRLs) from illegal high beams in
traffic (assholes). Just like they can't realistically tell the difference
between legal blue bulbs or factory HIDs, and illegal blue bulbs and HID
"retrofits".

> (or at least made the law somewhat ambiguous to make enforcement
> difficult).


Yep, that's it exactly.

> The definition of "on" isn't defined.


Actually, that's an even better point. According to NHTSA's chief lighting
rulemaker, the US DRL spec requires that the DRLs turn off when the
headlamp switch is in *ANY "ON" POSITION*, including "parking lamps". But
Canada requires the DRLs to be on even if the parking lamps are on, unless
the _headlamps_ are also on. Since DRLs are required in Canada, the
carmakers who sell DRL-equipped cars in the US wire 'em up Canada-spec.
GM's the main offender, NHTSA is aware of the problem, and has brought it
to the attention of GM, and GM responds "We'll try not to do it in
future".

Meanwhile, the beginnings of a mandatory-DRL law are bubbling at NHTSA,
and they're looking at ways of satisfying the need to be able to defeat
the DRLs for temporary purposes (e.g. driving onto a military base).
They're thinking of requiring a timed-defeat button which, when pressed,
turns off the DRLs for a predetermined time or distance.

Apparently the notion of actually enforcing their own rules upon the
automakers is not a workable solution.

> Since the lay only differentiates on or off and highbeam DRL's are
> legal.....how to enforce the laws making "old" full bright brights
> illegal?!


Well, that's the other problem, is that the "anything goes" DRL spec has
grossly worsened misuse of lights. Time was, you would alert someone their
high beams were on and they'd say "Oops...thanks." Nowtimes, you do the
same thing and they say "So? All the new cars use them all the time."


  #26  
Old December 19th 04, 09:29 PM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mandatory DRL's huh...Joy!


  #27  
Old December 19th 04, 09:29 PM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mandatory DRL's huh...Joy!


  #28  
Old December 20th 04, 02:49 PM
Sportster4Eva
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
>
> nate
>


Another thought about the glare..
The brightness is compunded by the height of the lights on big vehicles.
Regular cars headlights are a couple of feet off the ground, but buses
and tractor trailers are right up there at eye level when you're in a
car. If you have a pitted windshield from lots of highway miles, it
compunds the glare with that aura you see around the lights. I've never
had an accident because of it, but it is a scary thing to be blinded by
oncoming lights.

--
Paul
'91 XL1200
'77 GL1000 (W.I.P.)
"I feel more like I do now than when I got here"

  #29  
Old December 20th 04, 02:49 PM
Sportster4Eva
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
>
> nate
>


Another thought about the glare..
The brightness is compunded by the height of the lights on big vehicles.
Regular cars headlights are a couple of feet off the ground, but buses
and tractor trailers are right up there at eye level when you're in a
car. If you have a pitted windshield from lots of highway miles, it
compunds the glare with that aura you see around the lights. I've never
had an accident because of it, but it is a scary thing to be blinded by
oncoming lights.

--
Paul
'91 XL1200
'77 GL1000 (W.I.P.)
"I feel more like I do now than when I got here"

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS-Automotive Industries --Several issues 1937 and 1938 Mike Petty Antique cars 0 July 14th 04 01:22 AM
1996 Stratus Electrical Issues seeker2k Dodge 0 June 16th 04 08:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.