Re: OT: A strange phenonemum
- From: Plusnet <not@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:17:41 -0000
In article <mfreja0nhyf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, faunt@xxxxxxxxx says...
Plusnet <not@xxxxxxxx> writes:Perhaps that is the thinking behind it.
In article <gotdu3lvc4sbduvrg6is999sm1685uvmft@xxxxxxx>,
jolonergan@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
I'm sure Swiss legislators are jolly good, but I can't follow the logic
But here in Switzerland it's illegal to drive with your sidelights on,
so models sold here would have to have a switch anyway, to turn them
off.
which says that some lighting is so much worse than no lighting and that
it should be made illegal.
Car lights perform two useful roles
1) make the car more visible to others &
2) illuminate the way ahead so the driver can see the road & any
hazards.
In good visibility[1] but less than full daylight, sidelights[2] can do
task 1) rather well without dazzling anyone.
Once it's dark enough for 2), then one needs headlights.
Half the traffic that you're dealing with is behind you & switching
between sidelights & headlights doesn't make the slightest difference to
the rear-facing lights of a car.
So, what's so good about headlights, & what's so terrible about
sidelights?
[1] i.e. no fog, heavy rain etc.
[2] a decent set of sidelights, which most modern cars have anyway.
At least here, sidelights are called "parking lights" and the theory
is that you'd confuse a parked car with a moving car. Driving with
just parking lights is also illegal in California.
It still strikes me as odd that, by giving a set of lights a name, this
somehow makes them ineffective.
Again, for all the traffic approaching from behind you, there's simply
no difference.
Parking lights used to be required in the UK a long time back.
(olderrats may recall)
I think on some cars it was possible to switch on only those on the
right hand side of the car (i.e. those furthest from the curb under
normal conditions) to halve the drain on the battery.
--
Sam
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: A strange phenonemum
- From: Jim Easterbrook
- Re: OT: A strange phenonemum
- References:
- OT: A strange phenonemum
- From: Bob E
- Re: OT: A strange phenonemum
- From: nicktravel2002
- Re: OT: A strange phenonemum
- From: J. P. Gilliver (John)
- Re: OT: A strange phenonemum
- From: Jo Lonergan
- Re: OT: A strange phenonemum
- From: Plusnet
- Re: OT: A strange phenonemum
- From: Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
- OT: A strange phenonemum
- Prev by Date: Re: Season's Greetings!
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Vegetarian cheese
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: A strange phenonemum
- Next by thread: Re: OT: A strange phenonemum
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|