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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Mandatory DRL's huh...Joy!
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Mandatory DRL's huh...Joy!
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |