Clearly, you are more interested in arguing than in engaging in
actual thought and debating topics in an intelligent manner. I've
wasted too much valuable time on this already, so don't be surprised
if this is my last post on the topic. Plus, your e-mail client's
quoting method makes replying to your posts tedious at best. I reply
to this only in the hope that it may help to further explain my
earlier posts, if not to you, then to anyone who may stumble across
the conversation in the archives.
"Brian" <hskr@san.rr.com> wrote:
> ------Being concerned about safety is fine, but when your "safety
> practices" start to endanger others, a line is crossed. Wether the cause
> for this is because these people don't care
> about anybody else or simply have not bothered to think about it, I
> don't know. Either way, I don't like it.
> I still don't see how having your headlights, or fog lights in my case, can
> endanger others. It doesn't blind them, and if it's that big of a
> distraction to see headlights in the oncoming lane during the day, god
> forbid that person ever drives at night.
No, it doesn't blind oncoming drivers, but it does create glare,
clutter, and can hide directional signals, motorcycles and emergency
vehicles, among other things. I posted a link to the NMA web site
which has several documents which list these and other issues.
(www.motorists.org) You also need to consider the cumulative effects
of not just one car with DRLS, but many in a group.
> I'd hate to have had you on any
> safety committee when they first started putting headlights on cars.
> "headlights blind the oncoming drivers and cause a huge distraction when
> driving. They shouldn't be allowed"
Yeah, that makes sense. :-P Clearly, headlights provide a
valuable service by allowing the driver of a vehicle to see at night
and in other low light conditions. That is their primary usage. They
can also have the supplimentary benefit of increased visibility of
your vehicle to other drivers, but their use in that fashion must be
exercised judiciously, based on the conditions at hand, as opposed to
simply leaving them on at all times. The reason for this is that
having your lights on creates certain side effects, and these must be
balanced against the benefits they are providing.
BTW, I did find it rather telling that you would think that a
"safety committee" would have anything to do with adding headlights to
a vehicle. More than ever, I fear I am wasting my time.
> ------ Not necessarily. Volvos were known for years as being a very, very
> safe car, and it was a huge selling point. People who were concerned
> about safety for themselves and their families gravitated towards the
> Volvo for this reason. However, Volvos are absolutely notorious in the
> motorcycling community for being bloodthirsty killing machines. :-)
> They earned that reputation because these drivers who seemed to be so
> concerned with safety apparently just wanted to wrap themselves in a
> protective cocoon and drive like imbeciles; to blazes with the rest of
> the world.
> Well, I don't drive a Volvo, so I'm good there. Guess I can keep using my
> lights during the day. But honestly, I don't see too many Volvo's on the
> road compared to other makes.
Ok, I'll bite - the number of Volvos on the road is relevant because... ?
> And that's like saying people drive worse
> when wearing a seatbelt because they fell they are safer. Or in the case of
> motorcycles, they are more dangerous when the rider is wearing a helmet and
> leathers because he wrapped himself in a protective cocoon and start driving
> like imbeciles.
Actually, its not like saying that at all, plus you managed to
miss the point completely. I was merely replying to your assertion
that "safety concious" people are less likely to be a hazard to others
on the roads by supplying some anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
Motorcyclists will commonly refer to Volvos by using the term "ovlov"
(Volvo spelled backwards) because that is the last thing you see in
your mirror before they rearend you and/or that is the impression
imbedded in your skin/helmet/leathers after the fact. Clearly not a
scientific study, just a lighthearted attempt to demonstrate that
deserved or not, a person who is "safety conscious" is not necessarily
a safe driver. Another, less esoteric example would be a 90 year old
great grandmother who drives her Lincoln Town Car at 15mph on the
expressway. She is driving at that speed because she feels,
conciously or not, that to go faster would be, for her, unsafe. It
may be true that as far as her abilities are concerned, she has better
control over the car at 15mph than at 75mph, but she is creating a
huge hazard to everyone around her. This, to a lesser effect, is
essentially what DRLs and drivers who leave their lights on all the
time are doing.
> Oh wait, I guess that is true since most bike riders feel
> the need to centerline cars on the freeway and at stoplights when they can
> barely fit and then wonder why they get hit so often.
The term which you are seeking is actually called "lane splitting",
and it is legal in many places. Wether it is safe or not is up to
debate. Given the attention level of the average cager, I would
certainly not attempt it myself except in an emergency. I also do not
know many bikers who make a habit of the practice. Most bikers know
why "we" get hit so often; its because we're small and difficult to
see. Having our headlight on all the time helps to make up for that
deficiency, but being cloaked in a sea of headlights takes our small
advantage away, leaving us right back where we started.
> ---On the surface, perhaps, but the actual implications of the action
> lead me to a different conclusion.
> Implication of the action?? That's like saying people purposely run with
> their headlights on just so they can drive worse.
No, its not like saying that at all. If it will assist your
reading comprehension, rather than to say "actual implications", I
could reprhase it to say that the "unintended consequences" of the
action lead me to a different conclusion. I'm certain that the vast
majority of DRL users and drivers who leave their headlights on do not
intend to cause harm or drive any differently than if their headlights
were off. However, there are very real ramifications to this simple
action, which most people have probably never considered. The
conclusion to which I was referring was my hypothesis that these
people are either ignorant of these consequences, or that they do not
care, choosing their own safety over that of others. My further
conclusion was that for the former group, (which I am sure is the
majority), the ignorance was an indictment of the non-curious
"sheeple" mentality of today's society and/or the decline in courtesy
which would ordinarily cause one to reflect on the possible side
effects of one's actions.
> Which leads me back to
> the whole thing comparing the motorcycle safety gear to this. I suppose you
> don't agree with motorcycles having headlights on either?? There's no
> difference.
There is a big difference. As I stated above, the motorcycle's
headlight compensates for its small size. Motorcycles are basically
invisible, not only because of their smaller size, but because when
drivers are performing an action such as pulling out into the street,
on some psychological level, their brain is trying to determine wether
there are any cars coming, when it should instead be evaluating the
entire environment, looking for any potential conflicts, which brings
motorcycles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, etc. into consideration.
In most car/motorcycle accidents almost always the driver will say of
the motorcyclist that they simply didn't see them. The brain has a
remarkable ability to ignore "irrelevant" data, and for whatever
reason, motorcycles seem to fall into this category when people simply
scan in a subconcious manner. The motorcycle's headlight being on may
be just what is needed to grab the focus of the consious mind, at
which point the person will realize that there is indeed a motorcycle
there. Most of this benefit goes away however, when the motorcycle
headlight is forced to swim in a sea of DRLs. A motorcycle well ahead
of a pack of cars with their headlights on may once again simply drop
back down to ignored status.
> ------If there is a need to alert
> others to your presence due to diminishing light, fog, rain, etc. then
> absolutely, turn those lights on, or use your running lights if it is
> legal and prudent to do so. However, on a clear, bright day, under
> most circumstances there is absolutely no reason for your lights to be
> on.
> Guess you've never driven on roads on a hot day.
Yeah, I've been meaning to get around to that; in all the years
I've been driving, somehow I've never had a need to go out except
during the winter. :-P
> The heat waves coming off
> the pavement hide oncoming cars, especially if the road is straight. Having
> headlights on makes them more visible, and this is on clear sunny days that
> should be the "safest."
Hence my saying "under MOST circumstances", rather than "under ALL
circumstances". If the mirage effect is creating an impediment to
visibility, then turn the friggin' lights on! Don't try to pin
absolutes on me - remember, I'm the one advocating operation of the
motor vehicle in a manner consistent with conditions. YOU are the one
on the side of the absolute - i.e. "it is better to leave your lights
on at all times, regardless of conditions". (As an aside, that alone
should tell you there may be something wrong with your argument...
As a general rule, absolutes are almost never a safe bet, because
for any rule, there is almost always an exception.)
> One cannot predict when to turn on or off their
> lights for optimal conditions, so it's just safer to leave them on.
If a driver is unable to determine via the conditions at hand
wether it is safer to turn their lights on or off, then I would
seriously question that person's decision making ability in general
and would further theorize that said individual perhaps does not
possess the cognitive ability necessary to safely operate a motor
vehicle in the first place.
> Oh, and I checked out your link. Seems like that website is pretty
> much anti-legislation on anything pertaining to traffic laws. So not
> to scientific of a sight. Especially when they quote all these
> "studies" about the hazards of DRLs, but yet never link to them for
> the readers to look at themselves. Seems like a pretty biased site
> that only caters to one side, instead of providing all the info and
> letting people make their own decision as the website says it is
> promoting. Driver freedom.
The site to which you refer is www.motorists.org, which is the web
site for the National Motorists Association, a group which I have
been a member of for the better part of two decades. (i.e. I think
I'm in a slightly better position to judge their intent.) I provided it
because the original poster was looking for information relating to
why having your lights on all the time does not increase safety. Its
obvious to me that your overview of the site was cursory at best,
based on your flawed conclusions. They are most certainly not
"anti-legislation on anything pertaining to traffic laws", as will be
blatantly obvious by simply reading their "About Us" page. Regarding
"all these studies about the hazards of DRLs" you which purport them
to be quoting, only one of the articles on the site mentions any DRL
studies, and in that article there are 3 studies which were mentioned,
two by the Greyhound Bus Company, one of which was pro-DRL, and
neither of which was about the "hazards of DRLs". The third study was
done by the Highway Loss Data Institute (the insurance industry).
This was the one that brought up concerns about DRL use. I suspect
the reason these are not linked to is that they are not available
online for linking to. Should you have an interest, perhaps the NMA
can furnish these studies to you, or you can contact the Greyhound Bus
Company or the HLDI to purchase copies of these studies. As far as
being biased goes, uhhh, yeah, that's kind've the point! They have
looked at the situation, drawn their conclusions, and their articles
support their arguments. They are not a public clearinghouse of
motorist information, they are a group trying to promote the rights of
motorists. Perhaps you would expect to find delicious BBQ recipes on
PETA's web site?
--
-Jon-
.- Jon Steiger -- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com -.
| '96 Kolb Firefly, '96 Suzuki Intruder, Miscellaneous Mopars |
`-------------------------------- http://www.jonsteiger.com --'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 01 2007 - 00:15:21 EDT