2002-2004 dodge ram fog lights
From : dave t
Q: are these units any better in performance than your typical aftermarket foglights thanks in advance .
Replies:
From : theguy
on 17 jun 2004 085859 gmt mopar440@aol.comnet.org redneck tookover hell wrote so first people were dying in your town constantlynearly every day now your neighbor got his truck wrecked a few years ago its amazing what lengths people will go to when they are losing the argument yes red. it certainly is. politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .
From : dtj
on wed 16 jun 2004 190630 -0500 paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote what the f*ck are you living in the land of drunk drivers you either are full of shit or you live in a town full of drunken idiots. he is full of shit. no i live in florida where there is no driver education the place is full of tourists who dont know where theyre going and everybody drives like idiots. my neighbor had his truck totaled a few years ago going down the highway legally at 65 mph in broad daylight and some bimbo pulled right out in front of him from a stop sign. happens all the time. dont know if having lights on would have prevented that but theres a damn sure better chance that it would help than hurt. you are full of shit. florida ranks 33rd best in highway deaths in the us. it is so fucking safe in florida that you probably couldnt get killed if you were an idiot and stayed in the left lane at the speed limit. only .01842% chance of dying in an accident per person per year!!! the worst state has only a .035% chance. that is not even worth worrying about. .
From : dtj
on thu 17 jun 2004 235633 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote dtj wrote if your town had every accident in florida it would have 8 fatalities a day. are you telling us there are no other locations in florida where people die in traffic accidents keep digging your hole asshole. some ppl will argue anything and everything to no end. people die in accidents lots of them all over the world every year. why do ppl love to argue about something for the most part removed from the original issue because you are an idiot see the op said that lots of people die where he lives every day. that is impossible. i have shown that. yet idiots like you keep arguing. .
From : dtj
on wed 16 jun 2004 191222 -0500 paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote what are you a dumbass first i said nearly every day and i live in a no but you clearly are. densly populated area of florida where i am sure there are more traffic fatalities then there are in redneck wyoming. my town has a quarter of a million people in it and traffic deaths here are high. are you really stupid enough to think traffc fatalities are evenly divided amongst all towns in the country lol!! if your town had every accident in florida it would have 8 fatalities a day. are you telling us there are no other locations in florida where people die in traffic accidents keep digging your hole asshole. .
From : theguy
on 17 jun 2004 182429 gmt mopar440@aol.comnet.org redneck tookover hell wrote yes red. it certainly is. well thepussy the boys put your crackwhore ass out on the street again oh littlepussy id like to tell you how funny you are but after the 75th time that you have posted the same thing you have just become more sad than usual. sigh. must be boring in peeu-whallop this month. hey isnt that a penal colony or something politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .
From : miles
dtj wrote if your town had every accident in florida it would have 8 fatalities a day. are you telling us there are no other locations in florida where people die in traffic accidents keep digging your hole asshole. some ppl will argue anything and everything to no end. people die in accidents lots of them all over the world every year. why do ppl love to argue about something for the most part removed from the original issue .
From : theguy
on thu 17 jun 2004 235633 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote dtj wrote if your town had every accident in florida it would have 8 fatalities a day. are you telling us there are no other locations in florida where people die in traffic accidents keep digging your hole asshole. some ppl will argue anything and everything to no end. you are right. red sure will. people die in accidents lots of them all over the world every year. why do ppl love to argue about something for the most part removed from the original issue .
From : bernard farquart
dtj wrote because you are an idiot see the op said that lots of people die where he lives every day. that is impossible. i have shown that. yet idiots like you keep arguing. and this is important because thanks you proved my point. youll argue anything and toss in a few cases of name calling to go with it. it depends on your definition of important this is a new group so really nothing is important but dtj was answering an assertion someone made in the course of a conversation not really important but certainly germane no names just a reasonable explanation of the obvious. ok is that alright bernard .
From : miles
dtj wrote because you are an idiot see the op said that lots of people die where he lives every day. that is impossible. i have shown that. yet idiots like you keep arguing. and this is important because thanks you proved my point. youll argue anything and toss in a few cases of name calling to go with it. .
From : bernard farquart
group i meant to type group not new group duh dtj wrote because you are an idiot see the op said that lots of people die where he lives every day. that is impossible. i have shown that. yet idiots like you keep arguing. and this is important because thanks you proved my point. youll argue anything and toss in a few cases of name calling to go with it. it depends on your definition of important this is a new group so really nothing is important but dtj was answering an assertion someone made in the course of a conversation not really important but certainly germane no names just a reasonable explanation of the obvious. ok is that alright bernard .
From : tbone
paul jensen wrote paul jensen wrote daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote dont be bitter just cause im more of a lighting propellerhead than you are. im certain theres stuff you know more about than i do but automotive lighting aint it. i dont give a crap what you think you know. where i live people are killed in automobile accidents almost every day. so why dont you crawl under your bed and stay there. the world is a dangerous place you know and driving with headlights on 24/7 doesnt help. if you believe that then you are a complete moron. i see two assertions 1 the world is a dangerous place. true. if you dont keep your wits about you you can get fucked over pretty badly. ive seen it happen. 2 driving with headlights on 24/7 doesnt help. true. studies have shown no real benefit to running with headlights on and/or drls. so whos the moron nate -- go dry to reply. http//www.toad.net/njnagel point me to such a study! dddd i would like to see them as well. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : tbone
paul jensen wrote i dont give a crap what you think you know. where i live people are killed in automobile accidents almost every day. often the innocent get killed. hardly a week goes by without an article in the paper where the survivor says something to the effect of i pulled out because i never saw him coming. what the f*ck are you living in the land of drunk drivers you either are full of shit or you live in a town full of drunken idiots. no i live in florida where there is no driver education the place is full of tourists who dont know where theyre going and everybody drives like idiots. my neighbor had his truck totaled a few years ago going down the highway legally at 65 mph in broad daylight and some bimbo pulled right out in front of him from a stop sign. happens all the time. dont know if having lights on would have prevented that but theres a damn sure better chance that it would help than hurt. it would have hurt if the sun was behind him. nate why -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : garth almgren
around 6/22/2004 834 pm tbone wrote paul jensen wrote my neighbor had his truck totaled a few years ago going down the highway legally at 65 mph in broad daylight and some bimbo pulled right out in front of him from a stop sign. happens all the time. dont know if having lights on would have prevented that but theres a damn sure better chance that it would help than hurt. it would have hurt if the sun was behind him. why running headlamps when the sun is at your back decreases oncomers ability to see you because your lights reduce the contrast of your sillhouette against the sun. - daniel stern 6/10/2003 -- /garth |i believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. almgren | i believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | and i believe it is better to know than to be ignorant. pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info --h.l. mencken 1880-1956 .
From : dddd
on wed 23 jun 2004 dddd wrote evidently there is no such study. evidently you arent following the thread too carefully. a very easy answer to a simple question but it means nothing. as i said before can you point me to a study that provers what was claimed. an answer such as you just gave indicates to me that you cant. dddd .
From : dddd
on wed 23 jun 2004 dddd wrote evidently there is no such study. evidently you arent following the thread too carefully. i reread the thread and see no evidence of such a study. you only seem to reply to posts with sarcasm and non-information. do you really have any facts or just half-baked opinions dddd .
From : daniel j stern
on wed 23 jun 2004 garth almgren wrote it would have hurt if the sun was behind him. why running headlamps when the sun is at your back decreases oncomers ability to see you because your lights reduce the contrast of your sillhouette against the sun. - daniel stern 6/10/2003 oy now im being quoted... its true though. common military tactic is to light up airplanes or tanks/trucks along their front-facing surfaces and come in along the axis of the sunshine early in the morning or late in the afternoon. utterly destroys the sillhouette and the enemy never sees whats coming until theyre right on top of em. -ds .
From : daniel j stern
on wed 23 jun 2004 dddd wrote evidently there is no such study. evidently you arent following the thread too carefully. .
From : dddd
paul jensen wrote paul jensen wrote daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote dont be bitter just cause im more of a lighting propellerhead than you are. im certain theres stuff you know more about than i do but automotive lighting aint it. i dont give a crap what you think you know. where i live people are killed in automobile accidents almost every day. so why dont you crawl under your bed and stay there. the world is a dangerous place you know and driving with headlights on 24/7 doesnt help. if you believe that then you are a complete moron. i see two assertions 1 the world is a dangerous place. true. if you dont keep your wits about you you can get fucked over pretty badly. ive seen it happen. 2 driving with headlights on 24/7 doesnt help. true. studies have shown no real benefit to running with headlights on and/or drls. so whos the moron nate -- go dry to reply. http//www.toad.net/njnagel point me to such a study! dddd i would like to see them as well. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving evidently there is no such study. dddd .
From : miles
garth almgren wrote running headlamps when the sun is at your back decreases oncomers ability to see you because your lights reduce the contrast of your sillhouette against the sun. - daniel stern 6/10/2003 that sounds great in theory but doesnt hold up in many cases in reality. there are many highways here in az where you must have your headlights on during the day. it is because they are one lane each way so visibility while passing is a must. in almost all cases the headlights helped. they will ticket anyone not turning their lights on. .
From : arif khokar
miles wrote there are many highways here in az where you must have your headlights on during the day. it is because they are one lane each way so visibility while passing is a must. in almost all cases the headlights helped. except in cases with highbeam based drls which interfere with distance perception. they will ticket anyone not turning their lights on. under what state law .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 24 jun 2004 arif khokar wrote there are many highways here in az where you must have your headlights on during the day. it is because they are one lane each way so visibility while passing is a must. in almost all cases the headlights helped. except in cases with highbeam based drls which interfere with distance perception. they will ticket anyone not turning their lights on. under what state law probably the one that says drivers must comply with all regulatory signs...! .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 24 jun 2004 matthew russotto wrote there are many highways here in az where you must have your headlights on during the day. it is because they are one lane each way so visibility while passing is a must. last i heard even in arizona theres this huge ball of nuclear fire visible during the day illuminating everything around and making it possible to see without headlights. sunlight coming from a more-or-less vertical angle is not the same as sunlight coming from a more-or-less horizontal angle. the former occurs during the bulk of the daylight hours and even in such generally-brightly-lit conditions well-implemented running lights can be of assistance in accurately gauging oncoming vehicle position and width in high-demand situations one-lane-each-way highways where overtaking is necessary. poorly-implemented running lamps can have the opposite effect conveying an *incorrect* impression of vehicle position and/or width. yet again drl effectiveness is almost completely a question of implementation. garths and daniels point is if that big ball of nuclear fire is to your back youre silohuetted against it -- unless you turn on your headlights in which case you are less visible. yes -- this is the horizontal case which occurs in the morning and in the afternoon when the sun is rising and setting. there is no single valid answer to the question do drls help or hurt. the only valid answers to that question are additional questions what kind of drls -- position intensity color wheres the sun what kind of road what other lights are also illuminated on the vehicle with drls. dddd and others seem to think im rabidly anti-drl which is not the case. as i have always said and continue to say its the implementation that can be problematic not the concept. -ds .
From : milesh
matthew russotto wrote last i heard even in arizona theres this huge ball of nuclear fire visible during the day illuminating everything around and making it possible to see without headlights. you either do not drive out in the country much or your area is vastly different than in arizona. it is very difficult to see oncoming cars in the distance unless they turn their headlights on during the day. garths and daniels point is if that big ball of nuclear fire is to your back youre silohuetted against it -- unless you turn on your headlights in which case you are less visible. great theory but try it. i have many times and cars with their lights on are easier to see even with the sun behind them. the only exception is if the sun is right on the horizon towards you in which case its pretty much difficult to see anything in the distance lights or not. but thats not a typical situation as it occurs only during certain times of years and only briefly in the morning or evening. .
From : milesh
matthew russotto wrote if you cant see a vehicle without its headlights on in the full arizona sun youve got other problems. unless the vehicle is so far away that the only thing you can see is the headlights -- in which case it is probably distracting your attention from closer and more important unlit items. not so. the issue is on two lane roads when passing. you must move into the oncoming traffic lane. headlights do help considerably in guaging distance. often cars blend into the nuetral toned desert landscape. maybe the problem is not as apparant in other states. .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 24 jun 2004 dddd wrote it means you missed several posts one of them mine in which i pointed you to where to read the original texts of just such studies. since i cant find it can you repost it i did several hours ago. message id pine.gso.4.58.0406241114370.1014@alumni.engin.umich.edu timestamp thu 24 jun 2004 112114 -0400 youre saying you cant see the repost either -ds .
From : nosey
-ds waiting for someone to read this post and then claim i never posted it i never saw this one. .
From : dddd
it seems as if this thread is controlled by the old adage of dont confuse me with facts - my mind is made up. you cant argue with someone who has reached a decision based on emotion. no amount of logic can change it. just like the people who will insist that seat belts are dangerous. dddd tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote last i heard even in arizona theres this huge ball of nuclear fire visible during the day illuminating everything around and making it possible to see without headlights. nobody said any different but a vehicle with its headlights on is more noticable than one that does not regardless of the huge ball of nuclear fire in the sky. if you cant see a vehicle without its headlights on in the full arizona sun youve got other problems. unless the vehicle is so far away that the only thing you can see is the headlights -- in which case it is probably distracting your attention from closer and more important unlit items. lol you are really reaching now. there is a big difference between seeing something and noticing it. you see many things that you never notice every day as does every one else on the planet that has the gift of sight. drls simply draw your attention to things so that you notice them. if what you say is true then there should never be any accidents due to people pulling out in front of oncoming traffic unless they are attempting suicide and we both know that it complete bs. garths and daniels point is if that big ball of nuclear fire is to your back youre silohuetted against it -- unless you turn on your headlights in which case you are less visible. lol the conditions in which that happens are so rare as to be completely discounted. they happen twice a day. wrong. there is only the remote possibility of it happening twice a day. but in order for that to happen the road must be running east to west it must be flat or minimally at the top of a rise and clear of trees it must be a clear morning or evening and the light temperature of the sun and the drls must be a close match. and on top of that even if all of these conditions are perfect it still only effects a maximum of half of the traffic per event about an hour max and during the summer the evening one is way past rush hour. like i said in reality it is so rare as to be completely discounted. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : tbone
i cant see it either and the link that you provided here seems to be nothing more than an email address. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving on thu 24 jun 2004 dddd wrote it means you missed several posts one of them mine in which i pointed you to where to read the original texts of just such studies. since i cant find it can you repost it i did several hours ago. message id pine.gso.4.58.0406241114370.1014@alumni.engin.umich.edu timestamp thu 24 jun 2004 112114 -0400 youre saying you cant see the repost either -ds .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 24 jun 2004 tbone wrote i cant see it either and the link that you provided here seems to be nothing more than an email address. its not an e-mail address its a message id number. its not for you to click. if you dont know how to use usenet and still cant see the post now that ive posted it twice the problems on your end and i guess youll have to wait til it shows up on googlegroups. ds .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 24 jun 2004 dddd wrote evidently there is no such study. evidently you arent following the thread too carefully. a very easy answer to a simple question but it means nothing. it means you missed several posts one of them mine in which i pointed you to where to read the original texts of just such studies. .
From : matthew russotto
miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote garth almgren wrote running headlamps when the sun is at your back decreases oncomers ability to see you because your lights reduce the contrast of your sillhouette against the sun. - daniel stern 6/10/2003 that sounds great in theory but doesnt hold up in many cases in reality. there are many highways here in az where you must have your headlights on during the day. it is because they are one lane each way so visibility while passing is a must. last i heard even in arizona theres this huge ball of nuclear fire visible during the day illuminating everything around and making it possible to see without headlights. garths and daniels point is if that big ball of nuclear fire is to your back youre silohuetted against it -- unless you turn on your headlights in which case you are less visible. .
From : fbloogyudsr
arif khokar akhokar1234@wvu.edu wrote miles wrote there are many highways here in az where you must have your headlights on during the day. it is because they are one lane each way so visibility while passing is a must. in almost all cases the headlights helped. except in cases with highbeam based drls which interfere with distance perception. they will ticket anyone not turning their lights on. under what state law in wa state http//www.leg.wa.gov/rcw/index.cfmsection=47.04.180&fuseaction=section floyd .
From : tbone
miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote garth almgren wrote running headlamps when the sun is at your back decreases oncomers ability to see you because your lights reduce the contrast of your sillhouette against the sun. - daniel stern 6/10/2003 that sounds great in theory but doesnt hold up in many cases in reality. there are many highways here in az where you must have your headlights on during the day. it is because they are one lane each way so visibility while passing is a must. last i heard even in arizona theres this huge ball of nuclear fire visible during the day illuminating everything around and making it possible to see without headlights. nobody said any different but a vehicle with its headlights on is more noticable than one that does not regardless of the huge ball of nuclear fire in the sky. garths and daniels point is if that big ball of nuclear fire is to your back youre silohuetted against it -- unless you turn on your headlights in which case you are less visible. lol the conditions in which that happens are so rare as to be completely discounted. this sounds more like a control issue rather than a safety issue. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : matthew russotto
tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote last i heard even in arizona theres this huge ball of nuclear fire visible during the day illuminating everything around and making it possible to see without headlights. nobody said any different but a vehicle with its headlights on is more noticable than one that does not regardless of the huge ball of nuclear fire in the sky. if you cant see a vehicle without its headlights on in the full arizona sun youve got other problems. unless the vehicle is so far away that the only thing you can see is the headlights -- in which case it is probably distracting your attention from closer and more important unlit items. garths and daniels point is if that big ball of nuclear fire is to your back youre silohuetted against it -- unless you turn on your headlights in which case you are less visible. lol the conditions in which that happens are so rare as to be completely discounted. they happen twice a day. .
From : dddd
on thu 24 jun 2004 dddd wrote evidently there is no such study. evidently you arent following the thread too carefully. a very easy answer to a simple question but it means nothing. it means you missed several posts one of them mine in which i pointed you to where to read the original texts of just such studies. since i cant find it can you repost it dddd .
From : milesh
matthew hunt wrote i dont know i dont care about your argument. he posted a message-id that people said they couldnt access and claimed he didnt post it. i accessed it. he claimed it pointed to some study done to support his argument. it pointed to nothing of the sort. thats all people are wondering. where is it .
From : milesh
jerry wrote use to be the stretch of highway between barstow and mojave in california was that way. chp loved to catch you without head lights on through there. is highway 58 all divided highway now last time i drove that route it was single lane except for a short area bordering edwards afb. .
From : dddd
on thu 24 jun 2004 matthew russotto wrote there are many highways here in az where you must have your headlights on during the day. it is because they are one lane each way so visibility while passing is a must. last i heard even in arizona theres this huge ball of nuclear fire visible during the day illuminating everything around and making it possible to see without headlights. sunlight coming from a more-or-less vertical angle is not the same as sunlight coming from a more-or-less horizontal angle. the former occurs during the bulk of the daylight hours and even in such generally-brightly-lit conditions well-implemented running lights can be of assistance in accurately gauging oncoming vehicle position and width in high-demand situations one-lane-each-way highways where overtaking is necessary. poorly-implemented running lamps can have the opposite effect conveying an *incorrect* impression of vehicle position and/or width. yet again drl effectiveness is almost completely a question of implementation. garths and daniels point is if that big ball of nuclear fire is to your back youre silohuetted against it -- unless you turn on your headlights in which case you are less visible. yes -- this is the horizontal case which occurs in the morning and in the afternoon when the sun is rising and setting. there is no single valid answer to the question do drls help or hurt. the only valid answers to that question are additional questions what kind of drls -- position intensity color wheres the sun what kind of road what other lights are also illuminated on the vehicle with drls. dddd and others seem to think im rabidly anti-drl which is not the case. as i have always said and continue to say its the implementation that can be problematic not the concept. -ds i really dont know whether or not you are anti-drl. you just state that there are studies that say that there is no benefit to running with drl or headlights. i am wondering where those studies are because simple logic will tell anyone that it is easier to see an object with lights than without lights. with lights you might not know what it is or what size it is or how far it is or even the sex of the driver but you know it is there. im still asking where are the studies you are talking about. dddd .
From : tbone
tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote last i heard even in arizona theres this huge ball of nuclear fire visible during the day illuminating everything around and making it possible to see without headlights. nobody said any different but a vehicle with its headlights on is more noticable than one that does not regardless of the huge ball of nuclear fire in the sky. if you cant see a vehicle without its headlights on in the full arizona sun youve got other problems. unless the vehicle is so far away that the only thing you can see is the headlights -- in which case it is probably distracting your attention from closer and more important unlit items. lol you are really reaching now. there is a big difference between seeing something and noticing it. you see many things that you never notice every day as does every one else on the planet that has the gift of sight. drls simply draw your attention to things so that you notice them. if what you say is true then there should never be any accidents due to people pulling out in front of oncoming traffic unless they are attempting suicide and we both know that it complete bs. garths and daniels point is if that big ball of nuclear fire is to your back youre silohuetted against it -- unless you turn on your headlights in which case you are less visible. lol the conditions in which that happens are so rare as to be completely discounted. they happen twice a day. wrong. there is only the remote possibility of it happening twice a day. but in order for that to happen the road must be running east to west it must be flat or minimally at the top of a rise and clear of trees it must be a clear morning or evening and the light temperature of the sun and the drls must be a close match. and on top of that even if all of these conditions are perfect it still only effects a maximum of half of the traffic per event about an hour max and during the summer the evening one is way past rush hour. like i said in reality it is so rare as to be completely discounted. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : matthew hunt
milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote ok i give. where is the link to the study you just requoted his own rhetoric and not a study. i dont know i dont care about your argument. he posted a message-id that people said they couldnt access and claimed he didnt post it. i accessed it. .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 24 jun 2004 tbone wrote there is a big difference between seeing something and noticing it. this is true and correct. drls simply draw your attention to things so that you notice them. thats theoretical. wrong. there is only the remote possibility of it happening twice a day. but in order for that to happen the road must be running east to west it must be flat or minimally at the top of a rise and clear of trees it must be a clear morning or evening and the light temperature of the sun and the drls must be a close match. and on top of that even if all of these conditions are perfect it still only effects a maximum of half of the traffic per event about an hour max and during the summer the evening one is way past rush hour. like i said in reality it is so rare as to be completely discounted. this paragraph consists of nothing but your own assumptions and ignorant guesses and your position isnt backed with factual data. by all means though dont let me interfere with your dreamworld. .
From : milesh
daniel j. stern wrote if you dont know how to use usenet and still cant see the post now that ive posted it twice the problems on your end and i guess youll have to wait til it shows up on googlegroups. three people on 3 different servers cant see it but you say the problem is on our end. the problem is on your end. since all your other messages are coming through fine i can only assume you posted nothing and have no intention of doing so. .
From : tbone
on thu 24 jun 2004 tbone wrote i cant see it either and the link that you provided here seems to be nothing more than an email address. its not an e-mail address its a message id number. its not for you to click. actually dan if you would have bothered to leave the word at the front of the message id you can click on it and it will take you to the message if it still exists on the server. perhaps you should lean how to cut and paste properly. if you dont know how to use usenet and still cant see the post now that ive posted it twice the problems on your end and i guess youll have to wait til it shows up on googlegroups. i wouldnt normally be suprised that the problem is on the server that im connected tosince road runners servers in a word suck but since im not the only one that cant find them .... -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : matthew hunt
milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote three people on 3 different servers cant see it but you say the problem is on our end. the problem is on your end. since all your other messages are coming through fine i can only assume you posted nothing and have no intention of doing so. i must be hallucinating then. 220 0 pine.gso.4.58.0406241114370.1014@alumni.engin.umich.edu article path nntp-server.caltech.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!xfer.itd.umich.edu!.itd.umich.edu!alumni.engin.umich.edu!dastern from daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu subject re 2002-2004 dodge ram fog lights in-reply-to iaudnacacihkdufdrvn-tw@speakeasy.net message-id pine.gso.4.58.0406241114370.1014@alumni.engin.umich.edu references mwdtc.565892$pk3.557644@pd7tw1no caa2an$gue@dispatch.concentric.net pine.gso.4. eeucc.13022$wi2.11705@lakeread05 iaudnacacihkdufdrvn-tw@speakeasy.net mime-version 1.0 content-type text/plain; charset=us-ascii lines 40 date thu 24 jun 2004 112114 -0400 nntp-posting-host 141.213.74.27 x-trace .itd.umich.edu 1088090475 141.213.74.27 thu 24 jun 2004 112115 edt nntp-posting-date thu 24 jun 2004 112115 edt xref nntp-server.caltech.edu rec.autos.driving569452 on thu 24 jun 2004 matthew russotto wrote there are many highways here in az where you must have your headlights on during the day. it is because they are one lane each way so visibility while passing is a must. last i heard even in arizona theres this huge ball of nuclear fire visible during the day illuminating everything around and making it possible to see without headlights. sunlight coming from a more-or-less vertical angle is not the same as sunlight coming from a more-or-less horizontal angle. the former occurs during the bulk of the daylight hours and even in such generally-brightly-lit conditions well-implemented running lights can be of assistance in accurately gauging oncoming vehicle position and width in high-demand situations one-lane-each-way highways where overtaking is necessary. poorly-implemented running lamps can have the opposite effect conveying an *incorrect* impression of vehicle position and/or width. yet again drl effectiveness is almost completely a question of implementation. garths and daniels point is if that big ball of nuclear fire is to your back youre silohuetted against it -- unless you turn on your headlights in which case you are less visible. yes -- this is the horizontal case which occurs in the morning and in the afternoon when the sun is rising and setting. there is no single valid answer to the question do drls help or hurt. the only valid answers to that question are additional questions what kind of drls -- position intensity color wheres the sun what kind of road what other lights are also illuminated on the vehicle with drls. dddd and others seem to think im rabidly anti-drl which is not the case. as i have always said and continue to say its the implementation that can be problematic not the concept. -ds .
From : tbone
daniel j. stern wrote if you dont know how to use usenet and still cant see the post now that ive posted it twice the problems on your end and i guess youll have to wait til it shows up on googlegroups. three people on 3 different servers cant see it but you say the problem is on our end. the problem is on your end. since all your other messages are coming through fine i can only assume you posted nothing and have no intention of doing so. once again we agree on something. this is getting scary. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : tbone
milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote three people on 3 different servers cant see it but you say the problem is on our end. the problem is on your end. since all your other messages are coming through fine i can only assume you posted nothing and have no intention of doing so. i must be hallucinating then. yes matt you must be. where is the link or text showing the study that was made to prove this bs. we can all find this post but we want the one with the link to the study the one he claims to have reposted multiple times. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : tbone
i agree. it seems like the people against them are more concerned with a loss of control rather than a safety issue. how dare someone else control my headlights lol. the same is true with seatbelts. how dare someone tell me that i have to do something where is my freedom!!!! i would change the law regarding seatbelts to say that if you dont wear one without a medical reason for not wearing it and get into an accident the insurance company is only responsible for lifesaving care only and the person cannot sue for injuries regardless of whos fault the accident is. if they refuse to take responsibility for their own safety why should anyone else have to. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving it seems as if this thread is controlled by the old adage of dont confuse me with facts - my mind is made up. you cant argue with someone who has reached a decision based on emotion. no amount of logic can change it. just like the people who will insist that seat belts are dangerous. dddd tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote last i heard even in arizona theres this huge ball of nuclear fire visible during the day illuminating everything around and making it possible to see without headlights. nobody said any different but a vehicle with its headlights on is more noticable than one that does not regardless of the huge ball of nuclear fire in the sky. if you cant see a vehicle without its headlights on in the full arizona sun youve got other problems. unless the vehicle is so far away that the only thing you can see is the headlights -- in which case it is probably distracting your attention from closer and more important unlit items. lol you are really reaching now. there is a big difference between seeing something and noticing it. you see many things that you never notice every day as does every one else on the planet that has the gift of sight. drls simply draw your attention to things so that you notice them. if what you say is true then there should never be any accidents due to people pulling out in front of oncoming traffic unless they are attempting suicide and we both know that it complete bs. garths and daniels point is if that big ball of nuclear fire is to your back youre silohuetted against it -- unless you turn on your headlights in which case you are less visible. lol the conditions in which that happens are so rare as to be completely discounted. they happen twice a day. wrong. there is only the remote possibility of it happening twice a day. but in order for that to happen the road must be running east to west it must be flat or minimally at the top of a rise and clear of trees it must be a clear morning or evening and the light temperature of the sun and the drls must be a close match. and on top of that even if all of these conditions are perfect it still only effects a maximum of half of the traffic per event about an hour max and during the summer the evening one is way past rush hour. like i said in reality it is so rare as to be completely discounted. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : milesh
tbone wrote i agree. it seems like the people against them are more concerned with a loss of control rather than a safety issue. how dare someone else control my headlights lol. the same is true with seatbelts. how dare someone tell me that i have to do something where is my freedom!!!! i would change the law regarding seatbelts to say that if you dont wear one without a medical reason for not wearing it and get into an accident the insurance company is only responsible for lifesaving care only and the person cannot sue for injuries regardless of whos fault the accident is. if they refuse to take responsibility for their own safety why should anyone else have to. yep. i do not think there should be a law making people wear seatbelts but insurance companies should be able to reduce liability. .
From : milesh
daniel j. stern wrote this paragraph consists of nothing but your own assumptions and ignorant guesses and your position isnt backed with factual data. unfortunately your so called scientific data sounds great in a lab but doesnt go far in the real world of people. if i noticed a vehicle because it had its lights on then guess what i noticed it! it is not theoretical. you cant make scientific assements of peoples reactions and adjustments to conditions around them in a lab void of human subjects for which to base the assement on. .
From : milesh
matthew hunt wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote three people on 3 different servers cant see it but you say the problem is on our end. the problem is on your end. since all your other messages are coming through fine i can only assume you posted nothing and have no intention of doing so. i must be hallucinating then. ok i give. where is the link to the study you just requoted his own rhetoric and not a study. .
From : tbone
on thu 24 jun 2004 tbone wrote there is a big difference between seeing something and noticing it. this is true and correct. drls simply draw your attention to things so that you notice them. thats theoretical. only in your little world. wrong. there is only the remote possibility of it happening twice a day. but in order for that to happen the road must be running east to west it must be flat or minimally at the top of a rise and clear of trees it must be a clear morning or evening and the light temperature of the sun and the drls must be a close match. and on top of that even if all of these conditions are perfect it still only effects a maximum of half of the traffic per event about an hour max and during the summer the evening one is way past rush hour. like i said in reality it is so rare as to be completely discounted. this paragraph consists of nothing but your own assumptions and ignorant guesses and your position isnt backed with factual data. and neither is yours but feel free to point out some of my errors if you can. there are no guesses here just simple facts. fact if the road does not run east to west the sun will not be in proper alignment with the car. fact if the road is also not long and flat or on the top of a rise and in both cases without significant trees the sun will be blocked or again not in proper alignment. fact if it is not a clear morning or eavening the clouds will also block the sun. fact this condition will only effect east bound traffic in the morning. fact this condition will only effect west bound traffic in the evening. fact if the sun and drl are not at similar color temps intensity and color you will see the difference and it will offset the glare from the oncoming sunlight. fact in the summer in the continental us the sun sets after 700 pm and that is after rush hour. now perhaps you might actually want to back your bullshit up for a change instead of your mystery links that nobody can find.. by all means though dont let me interfere with your dreamworld. lol now that would be you and this complete load of bs demonstrates just how anti-drl you really are which sorta makes you a liar as well. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 24 jun 2004 tbone wrote i cant see it either and the link that you provided here seems to be nothing more than an email address. its not an e-mail address its a message id number. its not for you to click. actually dan if you would have bothered to leave the word at the front of the message id the word was never present at the front of the message id. if you dont know how to use usenet and still cant see the post now that ive posted it twice the problems on your end and i guess youll have to wait til it shows up on googlegroups. i wouldnt normally be suprised that the problem is on the server that im connected tosince road runners servers in a word suck indeed. here ive pasted it up on my own space http//www.torque.net/dastern/post.html .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 24 jun 2004 tbone wrote this paragraph consists of nothing but your own assumptions and ignorant guesses and your position isnt backed with factual data. and neither is yours well tbone bud actually yeah it is. you can bitch and moan all you want about it no skin off my nose. but feel free to point out some of my errors if you can. sure thing. you claim that horizontal-sun situations should be discounted because they occur only in the morning and evening. a disproportionately large number of crashes occur in the morning and evening hours coinciding with sunrise and sunset *and* the effect is robust through the change from standard to daylight-saving time showing its not caused by other factors. doesnt sound worth discounting to me. spend some time wading through highway loss data institute data -- its all right there. ds .
From : milesh
daniel j. stern wrote sure thing. you claim that horizontal-sun situations should be discounted because they occur only in the morning and evening. a disproportionately large number of crashes occur in the morning and evening hours coinciding with sunrise and sunset *and* the effect is robust through the change from standard to daylight-saving time showing its not caused by other factors. doesnt sound worth discounting to me. the angle of the sun changes from season to season. it does not shine straight down a given road year round every morning. yet the situations as you refer to them do indeed coincide with morning and evening all year long. just a thought here but maybe its because those times are when the most traffic is on the roads. i drive east bound every morning to work. only during certain times of the year do i get any sun glare. its not very common. .
From : fbloogyudsr
milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote daniel j. stern wrote sure thing. you claim that horizontal-sun situations should be discounted because they occur only in the morning and evening. a disproportionately large number of crashes occur in the morning and evening hours coinciding with sunrise and sunset *and* the effect is robust through the change from standard to daylight-saving time showing its not caused by other factors. doesnt sound worth discounting to me. the angle of the sun changes from season to season. it does not shine straight down a given road year round every morning. yet the situations as you refer to them do indeed coincide with morning and evening all year long. just a thought here but maybe its because those times are when the most traffic is on the roads. i drive east bound every morning to work. only during certain times of the year do i get any sun glare. its not very common. yeah but youre only *one* 1 person at *one* time of day. one of the most common problems that drivers in seattle have is the sun-glare on the two floating bridges i90 & sr 520 both are aligned east-west. since the rush hours last 3-4 hours morning and afternoon actually 520 is beyond design capacity for more than 12 hours a day it really doesnt matter what time the sun sets or rises - it *will* coincide with some portion of rush hour. fortunately theyre both divided highways so the resulting collisions are rear-enders rather than head-ons. floyd .
From : daniel j stern
the angle of the sun changes from season to season. it does not shine straight down a given road year round every morning. yet the situations as you refer to them do indeed coincide with morning and evening all year long. just a thought here but maybe its because those times are when the most traffic is on the roads. which part of the effect is robust through the time change from standard to daylight-saving time which shows its not due to other effects did you not understand morning and evening rush hour occur at the same *clock* time every day all year round regardless of the position of the sun. -ds .
From : jerry
miles wrote there are many highways here in az where you must have your headlights on during the day. it is because they are one lane each way so visibility while passing is a must. in almost all cases the headlights helped. they will ticket anyone not turning their lights on. use to be the stretch of highway between barstow and mojave in california was that way. chp loved to catch you without head lights on through there. jerry .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 24 jun 2004 fbloogyudsr wrote one of the most common problems that drivers in seattle have is the sun-glare on the two floating bridges i90 & sr 520 both are aligned east-west. since the rush hours last 3-4 hours morning and afternoon actually 520 is beyond design capacity for more than 12 hours a day it really doesnt matter what time the sun sets or rises - it *will* coincide with some portion of rush hour. fortunately theyre both divided highways so the resulting collisions are rear-enders rather than head-ons. ive driven both of those bridges during morning and evening rush hour and youre right theyre both excellent examples of whats being described. another perfect instance is e. union ave. in englewood co. there are *lots* of east-west streets with *lots* of traffic all over the world; increased vehicle-vehicle vehicle-cyclist vehicle-pedestrian and single-vehicle crashes during sun-glare hours show us very well that we must not discount this effect but rather must do everything we can to mitigate it. conspicuity is all about contrast. we *see* everything in our field of vision; we *notice* only that which is conspicuous. when extreme and/or large-field glare e.g. sun glare reduces the image of a vehicle to nothing but a silhouette reducing the contrast of that silhouette against the sun behind it by using headlamps *reduces that vehicles conspicuity*. its not up for debate its just the way the world works. -ds waiting for someone to read this post and then claim i never posted it .
From : milesh
fbloogyudsr wrote yeah but youre only *one* 1 person at *one* time of day. one of the most common problems that drivers in seattle have is the sun-glare on the two floating bridges i90 & sr 520 both are aligned east-west. since the rush hours last 3-4 hours morning and afternoon actually 520 is beyond design capacity for more than 12 hours a day it really doesnt matter what time the sun sets or rises - it *will* coincide with some portion of rush hour. fortunately theyre both divided highways so the resulting collisions are rear-enders rather than head-ons. what i was referring to is that the sun moves to the north or south depending on the season. only during a short period of the year is the sun shining right down a given road that is close to east/west. .
From : milesh
daniel j. stern wrote which part of the effect is robust through the time change from standard to daylight-saving time which shows its not due to other effects did you not understand we do not have daylight saving here nor in a few other locations in the usa and world so that point is meaningless. i think were in agreement that accidents occur based on the number of cars on the road at a given moment and not the sun. there are a few days at least here every year where the sun glare is very bad and an increase of accidents do occur. but it is seldom. .
From : milesh
daniel j. stern wrote conspicuity is all about contrast. we *see* everything in our field of vision; we *notice* only that which is conspicuous. when extreme and/or large-field glare e.g. sun glare reduces the image of a vehicle to nothing but a silhouette reducing the contrast of that silhouette against the sun behind it by using headlamps *reduces that vehicles conspicuity*. its not up for debate its just the way the world works. its up for debate because all the factors have not been figured in. more too it than just the sun and the headlight when out on the road. .
From : matthew hunt
jerry jlrice1655@earthlink.net wrote use to be the stretch of highway between barstow and mojave in california was that way. chp loved to catch you without head lights on through there. the 2-lane stretch of ca 14 north of mojave also requires lights as do various mountain roads like the western part of the angeles crest highway. i havent seen conspicuous enforcement in either place but of course i dont usually know what people have been pulled over for. .
From : kg
last i heard these are driving lights not fog lights. are these units any better in performance than your typical aftermarket foglights thanks in advance .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 27 may 2004 dave t wrote are these units any better in performance than your typical aftermarket foglights the entire front lighting system on the new-gen ram is godawful. the headlamps couldve/shouldve been much better than even the previous-generation upgrade sport lights but chrysler didnt spend enough money on them and so theyre garbage. the foggy lites are pretty much the same as most of the rest of the foggy lites on north american roads primarily there for dealers to make extra profit and for the benefit of people who think foggy lites look kewl. as far as the aftermarket most aftermarket fog lamps readily available are junk but there are a lot of good ones out there too. the main thing is not to let *anyones* advertising or packaging sway you. ask specific questions -- a lot of them -- before you buy any lamps. i havent measured the size of the front fascia opening on a new-gen ram...wonder if a set of cibie external-mount h4 headlamps would fit. hmm... -stern my ram is 2 generations old so i can put in whatever 200mm x 142mm lights i want...currently running one cibie and one marchal plus a set of bosches .
From : gary carter
sound like one of those morons i meat on a clear night running around with there fog lights on. if they were driving lights they would come on only with the high beam lights. fog lights should never be used with high beams that is why the switch off when the high beams are turned on. in fact if legal in your area they work best with just the parking lights on in driving conditions that truly require fog lights. not when cruising the local burger queen. the factory lights that came on my 96 were a joke the ones i mounted in my homemade front bumper are a vast improvement even though they are just cheap hellas lights. the only good thing i will say about having factory fog lights is that i had the factory dash switch and wiring to use to run the relay under the hood. would be afraid to run decent fog lights through factory wiring harness alone but if you use the factory wiring to run the relay you will only draw usually 5 amps max and then run power from the under hood electrical distribution center. gary carter last i heard these are driving lights not fog lights. are these units any better in performance than your typical aftermarket foglights thanks in advance .
From : dtj
on wed 23 jun 2004 233650 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote garth almgren wrote running headlamps when the sun is at your back decreases oncomers ability to see you because your lights reduce the contrast of your sillhouette against the sun. - daniel stern 6/10/2003 that sounds great in theory but doesnt hold up in many cases in reality. there are many highways here in az where you must have your headlights on during the day. it is because they are one lane each way so visibility while passing is a must. in almost all cases the headlights helped. they will ticket anyone not turning their lights on. just because you think that is reality does not make it so. .
From : dtj
on thu 24 jun 2004 163950 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote garths and daniels point is if that big ball of nuclear fire is to your back youre silohuetted against it -- unless you turn on your headlights in which case you are less visible. lol the conditions in which that happens are so rare as to be completely discounted. this sounds more like a control issue rather than a safety issue. i guess to a complete fucking moron the sun rising and setting is a rare event. .
From : dtj
on thu 24 jun 2004 181105 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote if you cant see a vehicle without its headlights on in the full arizona sun youve got other problems. unless the vehicle is so far away that the only thing you can see is the headlights -- in which case it is probably distracting your attention from closer and more important unlit items. lol you are really reaching now. there is a big difference between seeing something and noticing it. you see many things that you never notice every day as does every one else on the planet that has the gift of sight. drls bzzzt. your idiocy notwithstanding the fact is that you notice things because they are different. since most cars on the road now have poorly implemented drls you actually notice those without them more easily. second idiots who arent paying attention and thus do not see cars and trucks on the road should not be driving. .
From : dtj
on thu 24 jun 2004 194612 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote its not an e-mail address its a message id number. its not for you to click. actually dan if you would have bothered to leave the word at the front of the message id you can click on it and it will take you to the message if it still exists on the server. perhaps you should lean how to cut and paste properly. perhaps you should buy a real reader. i can click on it just fine and it takes me to the message it refers to just fine. if idiots wouldnt bother intelligent people on usenet this discussion would die rather quickly. .
From : dtj
on 24 jun 2004 181825 edt milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote daniel j. stern wrote which part of the effect is robust through the time change from standard to daylight-saving time which shows its not due to other effects did you not understand we do not have daylight saving here nor in a few other locations in the why do you insist on continuing to make yourself look more and more stupid with each post .
From : dddd
i read all the crap that you pointed to and it appears to be a lot of maybes ifs conditionals suppositions and all sorts of unscientific guesses. it is not a study showing that drls or headlights improve safety. it is totally illogical and makes sense only if you have already made your mind up that drls and headlights dont improve safety. anybody with any sense will agree that if two vehicles are approaching you during daylight hours one with drls and one without you will see the the one with drls first and more clearly. if you think that this is not a fact there is no hope for you. dddd on thu 24 jun 2004 tbone wrote i cant see it either and the link that you provided here seems to be nothing more than an email address. its not an e-mail address its a message id number. its not for you to click. actually dan if you would have bothered to leave the word at the front of the message id the word was never present at the front of the message id. if you dont know how to use usenet and still cant see the post now that ive posted it twice the problems on your end and i guess youll have to wait til it shows up on googlegroups. i wouldnt normally be suprised that the problem is on the server that im connected tosince road runners servers in a word suck indeed. here ive pasted it up on my own space http//www.torque.net/dastern/post.html .
From : fbloogyudsr
milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote fbloogyudsr wrote yeah but youre only *one* 1 person at *one* time of day. one of the most common problems that drivers in seattle have is the sun-glare on the two floating bridges i90 & sr 520 both are aligned east-west. since the rush hours last 3-4 hours morning and afternoon actually 520 is beyond design capacity for more than 12 hours a day it really doesnt matter what time the sun sets or rises - it *will* coincide with some portion of rush hour. fortunately theyre both divided highways so the resulting collisions are rear-enders rather than head-ons. what i was referring to is that the sun moves to the north or south depending on the season. only during a short period of the year is the sun shining right down a given road that is close to east/west. youre *still* missing the point that daniel is trying to make the sun doesnt have to be at the horizon directly in front of you to cause problems. if your theory was correct only people driving directly east/west on the equator would have problems on the two days of the equinox. that is obviously and irrefutably untrue hence your theory is incorrect. floyd .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 24 jun 2004 dddd wrote i read all the crap that you pointed to and it appears to be a lot of maybes ifs conditionals suppositions thats what scientific studies yield. if youre reading something that claims to irrefutably prove that x is better than y youre reading an ad or a paid political message -- not a study. i must say you certainly did swim through the relevant studies at umtri and lrc quickly... ....you did go through their catalogues and read the studies you claim to so desperately want to see right or were you just jumping to conclusions and reading-in what you already know you want to see again anybody with any sense will agree that if two vehicles are approaching you during daylight hours one with drls and one without you will see the the one with drls first and more clearly. the real world does not work according to dddds idea of sense and from what ive seen of his postings thats a very good thing. thats why we have science -- to find out how things *really* work. unfortunately science has a bad habit of shooting ugly holes in beautiful theories such as dddds. not that the opinion of someone so insecure about his position as to hide behind a pseudonym dddd really matters much...to anyone... -ds .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 24 jun 2004 nosey wrote -ds waiting for someone to read this post and then claim i never posted it i never saw this one. ;- .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 24 jun 2004 fbloogyudsr wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote what i was referring to is that the sun moves to the north or south depending on the season. only during a short period of the year is the sun shining right down a given road that is close to east/west. youre *still* missing the point that daniel is trying to make the sun doesnt have to be at the horizon directly in front of you to cause problems. if your theory was correct only people driving directly east/west on the equator would have problems on the two days of the equinox. that is obviously and irrefutably untrue hence your theory is incorrect. his hypothesis might be partly correct if there were a worldwide law requiring all roads to run either due east-west or due north-south. given that there can be found roads running at every angle relative to every cardinal direction youre right -- his hypothesis is rubbish. ds .
From : tbone
on thu 24 jun 2004 163950 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote garths and daniels point is if that big ball of nuclear fire is to your back youre silohuetted against it -- unless you turn on your headlights in which case you are less visible. lol the conditions in which that happens are so rare as to be completely discounted. this sounds more like a control issue rather than a safety issue. i guess to a complete fucking moron the sun rising and setting is a rare event. if you think that all it takes is the sun rising and setting to set up the discussed conditions then we all can see who the complete fucking moron is. btw you really should watch your language here before your mommy takes away your computer privileges. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : tbone
on thu 24 jun 2004 181105 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote if you cant see a vehicle without its headlights on in the full arizona sun youve got other problems. unless the vehicle is so far away that the only thing you can see is the headlights -- in which case it is probably distracting your attention from closer and more important unlit items. lol you are really reaching now. there is a big difference between seeing something and noticing it. you see many things that you never notice every day as does every one else on the planet that has the gift of sight. drls bzzzt. your idiocy notwithstanding the fact is that you notice things because they are different. duh what an idiot. everything is differemt moron it is what stands out that gets noticed and lights being shined at you is always noticed. since most cars on the road now have poorly implemented drls you actually notice those without them more easily. well then it looks like they are still effetive after all. second idiots who arent paying attention and thus do not see cars and trucks on the road should not be driving. and yet they still do. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : idaspode
on fri 25 jun 2004 035202 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote snip fortunately theyre both divided highways so the resulting collisions are rear-enders rather than head-ons. maybe im missing something but since most of these collisions are rear-enders wtf does that have to do with drls bumper glare its a killer... dj .
From : miles
dtj wrote just because you think that is reality does not make it so. for me it most certainly does. for you who knows what your experiences are. .
From : miles
dtj wrote i guess to a complete fucking moron the sun rising and setting is a rare event. the sun in relation to a road moves from season to season. last i checked roads dont move with the sun very often. .
From : miles
dti wrote perhaps you should buy a real reader. i can click on it just fine and it takes me to the message it refers to just fine. if idiots wouldnt bother intelligent people on usenet this discussion would die rather quickly. people such as yourself who think they are intelligent are very annoying to those of us who do. .
From : tbone
on thu 24 jun 2004 tbone wrote this paragraph consists of nothing but your own assumptions and ignorant guesses and your position isnt backed with factual data. and neither is yours well tbone bud actually yeah it is. you can bitch and moan all you want about it no skin off my nose. really then back it up with some links. but feel free to point out some of my errors if you can. sure thing. you claim that horizontal-sun situations should be discounted because they occur only in the morning and evening. a disproportionately large number of crashes occur in the morning and evening hours coinciding with sunrise and sunset really since most traffic is also on the road at these times it only makes sence that more accidents would occure at these times regardless of solar conditions. i am not saying that the glare from the sun does not make driving more difficult or does not lead to accidents. what i am saying is that this glare is usually not made worse by drls and you have no proof to say otherwise. *and* the effect is robust through the change from standard to daylight-saving time showing its not caused by other factors. doesnt sound worth discounting to me. lol now why is there any such thing as daylight-saving time perhaps because the sun rises and sets at different times through the year and daylight-saving time actually helps to put rush hour back into that time of the solar day. what is worth discounting is the fact that drls make it any worse because in order for that to possibly happen the conditions have to be right and it takes more than some glare from the sun to possibly cause it. spend some time wading through highway loss data institute data -- its all right there. it is easy to make raw numbers say what you want them too especially if you leave out key pieces of data or just choose just not to look at them. hell the televangelists do it all the time with the bible. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : tbone
milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote daniel j. stern wrote sure thing. you claim that horizontal-sun situations should be discounted because they occur only in the morning and evening. a disproportionately large number of crashes occur in the morning and evening hours coinciding with sunrise and sunset *and* the effect is robust through the change from standard to daylight-saving time showing its not caused by other factors. doesnt sound worth discounting to me. the angle of the sun changes from season to season. it does not shine straight down a given road year round every morning. yet the situations as you refer to them do indeed coincide with morning and evening all year long. just a thought here but maybe its because those times are when the most traffic is on the roads. i drive east bound every morning to work. only during certain times of the year do i get any sun glare. its not very common. yeah but youre only *one* 1 person at *one* time of day. one of the most common problems that drivers in seattle have is the sun-glare on the two floating bridges i90 & sr 520 both are aligned east-west. since the rush hours last 3-4 hours morning and afternoon actually 520 is beyond design capacity for more than 12 hours a day it really doesnt matter what time the sun sets or rises - it *will* coincide with some portion of rush hour. fortunately theyre both divided highways so the resulting collisions are rear-enders rather than head-ons. maybe im missing something but since most of these collisions are rear-enders wtf does that have to do with drls i never said that sun glare does not make driving more difficult just that it would be rare for drls to make the problem worse. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : tbone
on thu 24 jun 2004 194612 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote its not an e-mail address its a message id number. its not for you to click. actually dan if you would have bothered to leave the word at the front of the message id you can click on it and it will take you to the message if it still exists on the server. perhaps you should lean how to cut and paste properly. perhaps you should buy a real reader. lol why should i buy one when the pos m$ gives away works just fine. only an idiot or someone with a serious addiction to internet porn would do that. i can click on it just fine and it takes me to the message it refers to just fine. well isnt that just special. if idiots wouldnt bother intelligent people on usenet this discussion would die rather quickly. and thank you for proving this point with your own run of posts in this thread. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : tbone
on thu 24 jun 2004 tbone wrote i cant see it either and the link that you provided here seems to be nothing more than an email address. its not an e-mail address its a message id number. its not for you to click. actually dan if you would have bothered to leave the word at the front of the message id the word was never present at the front of the message id. my reader does and uses it to identify between and email links. yours apparently does not. if you dont know how to use usenet and still cant see the post now that ive posted it twice the problems on your end and i guess youll have to wait til it shows up on googlegroups. i wouldnt normally be suprised that the problem is on the server that im connected tosince road runners servers in a word suck indeed. here ive pasted it up on my own space http//www.torque.net/dastern/post.html i think that we simply have a communications error here. this i did find but your words made me think that you were referring to a specific study and had provided a link to it and i was looking for the post with the link. my error here. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : tbone
lol - -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving on fri 25 jun 2004 035202 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote snip fortunately theyre both divided highways so the resulting collisions are rear-enders rather than head-ons. maybe im missing something but since most of these collisions are rear-enders wtf does that have to do with drls bumper glare its a killer... dj .
From : milesh
reader -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving . 222 284702 cbi3li$sut@dispatch.concentric.net dtj wrote since it rarely affects you it never happens to anybody. how insightful. rarely now equates to never .
From : dddd
on fri 25 jun 2004 035202 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote snip fortunately theyre both divided highways so the resulting collisions are rear-enders rather than head-ons. maybe im missing something but since most of these collisions are rear-enders wtf does that have to do with drls bumper glare its a killer... dj these huge chrome bumpers that are on some pickups are a major problem with me. many are at just the right angle so as to act as a giant mirror reflecting my headlights back into my eyes. when i get behind one of them i find that using high beams helps even though it affects other drivers. i would like to have a can of black spray paint and paint every one that i see. dddd .
From : milesh
daniel j. stern wrote mileshs argument is akin to gms in favour of high-beam drls you can see a car from 2 miles away. grand -- now why do you need to see a car that is 2 miles away not sure i see a reason for high beam drls nor do i see a reason for the full-time no choice about it drls. on some roads lights on greatly help during the day. highway 60 and 93 between phoenix and kingman is one example where they are required and very very helpfull. dont know about 2 miles but dont forget that at speeds of 65mph two cars are closing at the rate of 190.6ft/sec which equals 27.7secs/mile. how much margin do you want when passing .
From : dtj
on thu 24 jun 2004 234809 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote dtj wrote i guess to a complete fucking moron the sun rising and setting is a rare event. the sun in relation to a road moves from season to season. last i checked roads dont move with the sun very often. how insightful. here i was thinking that there are millions of drivers on the roads and that at any given moment someone might be driving towards or away from the sun. then you come out and explain to me how since it rarely affects you it never happens to anybody. i feel so educated now. .
From : arif khokar
milesh wrote ok i give. where is the link to the study you just requoted his own rhetoric and not a study. a lot of scientific jounals may allow you to access articles online when you have a subscription. the other option is to go to a university library to find copies of journals that deal with the subject. im quite sure that the highway loss institute data may be found in numerous libraries. .
From : daniel j stern
on fri 25 jun 2004 arif khokar wrote milesh wrote ok i give. where is the link to the study you just requoted his own rhetoric and not a study. a lot of scientific jounals may allow you to access articles online when you have a subscription. the other option is to go to a university library to find copies of journals that deal with the subject. im quite sure that the highway loss institute data may be found in numerous libraries. ....iow exactly what i told him to do. i even pointed him at *which* libraries had all the journals he was interested in fully indexed and catalogued online. apparently hed rather throw temper tantrums than learn the answers to his questions. .
From : brent p
on the contrary. headlights let you know theres a car there -- but destroy most of your distance cues. instead of seeing a car you see a point or two points of glare. complete bs. ever see a saturn coming at you through glare .
From : milesh
matthew russotto wrote unless that big ball of nuclear fire has been extinguished im not buying it. as i expected. you dont get out much at least not out here. that big fire youre talking about is part of the cause. some from glare some from heat distortion on the horizon etc. .
From : milesh
daniel j. stern wrote ...iow exactly what i told him to do. i even pointed him at *which* libraries had all the journals he was interested in fully indexed and catalogued online. apparently hed rather throw temper tantrums than learn the answers to his questions. lol typical copout. dan you stated there were studies that you based your opinions on. so someone asked you to kindly post a link to the study for which you were referring. you stated you did post it but in reality you did no such thing. now youre backpeddling with the above copout rhetoric. we all know there is mounds of data for and against any particular view you wish to look up. what is wrong with someone asking for the particular report to which you referred to or can we just expect more of the find it yourself exuse or state it that it is just your opinion nothing wrong with that. .
From : matthew russotto
milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote matthew russotto wrote last i heard even in arizona theres this huge ball of nuclear fire visible during the day illuminating everything around and making it possible to see without headlights. you either do not drive out in the country much or your area is vastly different than in arizona. it is very difficult to see oncoming cars in the distance unless they turn their headlights on during the day. unless that big ball of nuclear fire has been extinguished im not buying it. .
From : matthew russotto
milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote not so. the issue is on two lane roads when passing. you must move into the oncoming traffic lane. headlights do help considerably in guaging distance. often cars blend into the nuetral toned desert landscape. maybe the problem is not as apparant in other states. on the contrary. headlights let you know theres a car there -- but destroy most of your distance cues. instead of seeing a car you see a point or two points of glare. .
From : daniel j stern
on fri 25 jun 2004 matthew russotto wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote you either do not drive out in the country much or your area is vastly different than in arizona. it is very difficult to see oncoming cars in the distance unless they turn their headlights on during the day. unless that big ball of nuclear fire has been extinguished im not buying it. mileshs argument is akin to gms in favour of high-beam drls you can see a car from 2 miles away. grand -- now why do you need to see a car that is 2 miles away .
From : tbone
milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote not so. the issue is on two lane roads when passing. you must move into the oncoming traffic lane. headlights do help considerably in guaging distance. often cars blend into the nuetral toned desert landscape. maybe the problem is not as apparant in other states. on the contrary. headlights let you know theres a car there -- but destroy most of your distance cues. instead of seeing a car you see a point or two points of glare. complete bs. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : dtj
on fri 25 jun 2004 192437 gmt tetraethylleadremovethis@yahoo.com brent p wrote on the contrary. headlights let you know theres a car there -- but destroy most of your distance cues. instead of seeing a car you see a point or two points of glare. complete bs. ever see a saturn coming at you through glare no. saturn is the 6th planet so it never eclipses the sun when seen from earth. .
From : dtj
on thu 24 jun 2004 225357 -0600 idaspode not@icehouse.net wrote on fri 25 jun 2004 035202 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote snip fortunately theyre both divided highways so the resulting collisions are rear-enders rather than head-ons. maybe im missing something but since most of these collisions are rear-enders wtf does that have to do with drls bumper glare its a killer... you idiots are amazing. why not wait until you get out of first grade then come back and try and read this again. in case you are as stubborn as you are stupid i will explain it to you. when you are driving into the sun the brightness of the glaring yellow/red object makes it more difficult to see the brake lights of the car you are following. this explains contrary to moronic opinions like yours and the idiot with meat envy due to the lack of meat on his body why the collisions are rear-enders. .
From : dtj
on thu 24 jun 2004 225357 -0600 idaspode not@icehouse.net wrote on fri 25 jun 2004 035202 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote snip fortunately theyre both divided highways so the resulting collisions are rear-enders rather than head-ons. maybe im missing something but since most of these collisions are rear-enders wtf does that have to do with drls bumper glare its a killer... you idiots are amazing. why not wait until you get out of first grade then come back and try and read this again. in case you are as stubborn as you are stupid i will explain it to you. when you are driving into the sun the brightness of the glaring yellow/red object makes it more difficult to see the brake lights of the car you are following. this explains contrary to moronic opinions like yours and the idiot with meat envy due to the lack of meat on his body why the collisions are rear-enders. .
From : tbone
on thu 24 jun 2004 225357 -0600 idaspode not@icehouse.net wrote on fri 25 jun 2004 035202 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote snip fortunately theyre both divided highways so the resulting collisions are rear-enders rather than head-ons. maybe im missing something but since most of these collisions are rear-enders wtf does that have to do with drls bumper glare its a killer... you idiots are amazing. why not wait until you get out of first grade then come back and try and read this again. lol like your continuing use of immature insults makes you look any smarter. in case you are as stubborn as you are stupid i will explain it to you. when you are driving into the sun the brightness of the glaring yellow/red object makes it more difficult to see the brake lights of the car you are following. and this is in relation to drls how do you now suggest that brake lights and turn signals also be eliminated due to sun glare this explains contrary to moronic opinions like yours and the idiot with meat envy due to the lack of meat on his body why the collisions are rear-enders. btw is this double post an indication of your sk
From : milesh
dtj wrote in case you are as stubborn as you are stupid i will explain it to you. when you are driving into the sun the brightness of the glaring yellow/red object makes it more difficult to see the brake lights of the car you are following. this explains contrary to moronic opinions like yours and the idiot with meat envy due to the lack of meat on his body why the collisions are rear-enders. lol! sounds like you have a bad habit of tailgating. .
From : nosey
dddd wrote on fri 25 jun 2004 035202 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote snip fortunately theyre both divided highways so the resulting collisions are rear-enders rather than head-ons. maybe im missing something but since most of these collisions are rear-enders wtf does that have to do with drls bumper glare its a killer... dj these huge chrome bumpers that are on some pickups are a major problem with me. many are at just the right angle so as to act as a giant mirror reflecting my headlights back into my eyes. when i get behind one of them i find that using high beams helps even though it affects other drivers. i would like to have a can of black spray paint and paint every one that i see. dddd i know which bumpers you are talking about. they can reflect quite a bit of light back at you. i found that if you back off a few car lengths its not so bad. on second thought maybe ill get one of them. ;^ .
From : dddd
daniel j. stern wrote ...iow exactly what i told him to do. i even pointed him at *which* libraries had all the journals he was interested in fully indexed and catalogued online. apparently hed rather throw temper tantrums than learn the answers to his questions. lol typical copout. dan you stated there were studies that you based your opinions on. so someone asked you to kindly post a link to the study for which you were referring. you stated you did post it but in reality you did no such thing. now youre backpeddling with the above copout rhetoric. we all know there is mounds of data for and against any particular view you wish to look up. what is wrong with someone asking for the particular report to which you referred to or can we just expect more of the find it yourself exuse or state it that it is just your opinion nothing wrong with that. i have come to the conclusion that he is just one of these guys that makes up his mind that certain things are true and goes to any lengths to prove his theory ignoring facts. he is not worth wasting any more time on so he goes in the special little file for other odd balls. dddd .
From : brent p
on fri 25 jun 2004 192437 gmt tetraethylleadremovethis@yahoo.com brent p wrote on the contrary. headlights let you know theres a car there -- but destroy most of your distance cues. instead of seeing a car you see a point or two points of glare. complete bs. ever see a saturn coming at you through glare no. saturn is the 6th planet so it never eclipses the sun when seen from earth. a saturn. a plastic snap together model of a car made by gm known for its especially glaring high beam drls. .
From : dtj
on 25 jun 2004 161324 edt milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote daniel j. stern wrote mileshs argument is akin to gms in favour of high-beam drls you can see a car from 2 miles away. grand -- now why do you need to see a car that is 2 miles away not sure i see a reason for high beam drls nor do i see a reason for the full-time no choice about it drls. on some roads lights on greatly help during the day. highway 60 and 93 between phoenix and kingman is one example where they are required and very very helpfull. dont know about 2 miles but dont forget that at speeds of 65mph two cars are closing at the rate of 190.6ft/sec which equals 27.7secs/mile. how much margin do you want when passing either you are incredibly stupid or you simply cant handle basic math. without using a calculator i can estimate that as about 55 secs/mile. which of course shows why everyone here is saying they are of no fucking use. seeing a car two minutes before you get close to him is completely unnecessary assuming that drls did allow you to do that when you would otherwise not see the other car. which they dont. .
From : dtj
on fri 25 jun 2004 222809 gmt tetraethylleadremovethis@yahoo.com brent p wrote ever see a saturn coming at you through glare no. saturn is the 6th planet so it never eclipses the sun when seen from earth. a saturn. a plastic snap together model of a car made by gm known for its especially glaring high beam drls. a much better description than i could have come up with! .
From : miles
dtj wrote either you are incredibly stupid or you simply cant handle basic math. without using a calculator i can estimate that as about 55 secs/mile. rofl!! what math are you using at 65mph a car travels 95.3ft/sec. two cars at 65mph each close in on each other at 190.6ft/sec. 27.7sec * 190.6ft/sec = 5280ft which = 1 mile. only an incredibly stupid person would make the mistake on figuring in the speed on only 1 car when passing. i ask again how many seconds margin do you want when passing .
From : idaspode
on sun 27 jun 2004 025538 gmt dtj dtj@comcast.net wrote on 25 jun 2004 161324 edt milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote daniel j. stern wrote mileshs argument is akin to gms in favour of high-beam drls you can see a car from 2 miles away. grand -- now why do you need to see a car that is 2 miles away not sure i see a reason for high beam drls nor do i see a reason for the full-time no choice about it drls. on some roads lights on greatly help during the day. highway 60 and 93 between phoenix and kingman is one example where they are required and very very helpfull. dont know about 2 miles but dont forget that at speeds of 65mph two cars are closing at the rate of 190.6ft/sec which equals 27.7secs/mile. how much margin do you want when passing either you are incredibly stupid or you simply cant handle basic math. without using a calculator i can estimate that as about 55 secs/mile. snip oops better get the calculator out the key was his mention of closing rate. your math is for one car traveling one mile but ya got another coming at you at the same speed or half of your 55sec/mile 55/2=27.5. or more simply put two cars one mile apart traveling towards each other at 60 mph will pass each other in 30 seconds. a relative of einstein .
From : tbone
on 25 jun 2004 161324 edt milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote daniel j. stern wrote mileshs argument is akin to gms in favour of high-beam drls you can see a car from 2 miles away. grand -- now why do you need to see a car that is 2 miles away not sure i see a reason for high beam drls nor do i see a reason for the full-time no choice about it drls. on some roads lights on greatly help during the day. highway 60 and 93 between phoenix and kingman is one example where they are required and very very helpfull. dont know about 2 miles but dont forget that at speeds of 65mph two cars are closing at the rate of 190.6ft/sec which equals 27.7secs/mile. how much margin do you want when passing either you are incredibly stupid or you simply cant handle basic math. without using a calculator i can estimate that as about 55 secs/mile. now calculate in the fact that the other car is also comming at you at the same speed and that cuts the time in half moron. which of course shows why everyone here is saying they are of no fucking use. not everyone just idiots like you. seeing a car two minutes before you get close to him is completely unnecessary that would only be true if the other car was not moving. did you get past the second grade yet assuming that drls did allow you to do that when you would otherwise not see the other car. which they dont. once again talking out of your ass without yet a shred of fact backing any of it up. like i said before its not that you feel that drls are useless its that you dont want that little bit of control taken away from you. how sad. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : jerry
dtj wrote on 25 jun 2004 161324 edt milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote daniel j. stern wrote mileshs argument is akin to gms in favour of high-beam drls you can see a car from 2 miles away. grand -- now why do you need to see a car that is 2 miles away not sure i see a reason for high beam drls nor do i see a reason for the full-time no choice about it drls. on some roads lights on greatly help during the day. highway 60 and 93 between phoenix and kingman is one example where they are required and very very helpfull. dont know about 2 miles but dont forget that at speeds of 65mph two cars are closing at the rate of 190.6ft/sec which equals 27.7secs/mile. how much margin do you want when passing either you are incredibly stupid or you simply cant handle basic math. without using a calculator i can estimate that as about 55 secs/mile. which of course shows why everyone here is saying they are of no fucking use. seeing a car two minutes before you get close to him is completely unnecessary assuming that drls did allow you to do that when you would otherwise not see the other car. which they dont. lil jay jerry .
From : bernard farquart
on fri 25 jun 2004 222809 gmt tetraethylleadremovethis@yahoo.com brent p wrote ever see a saturn coming at you through glare no. saturn is the 6th planet so it never eclipses the sun when seen from earth. a saturn. a plastic snap together model of a car made by gm known for its especially glaring high beam drls. a much better description than i could have come up with! saturns do seem to be the worst of the glaring drls odd since you might think that gm would have some sort of standard. bernard .
From : tbone
on sat 26 jun 2004 225109 -0600 idaspode not@icehouse.net wrote dont know about 2 miles but dont forget that at speeds of 65mph two cars are closing at the rate of 190.6ft/sec which equals 27.7secs/mile. how much margin do you want when passing either you are incredibly stupid or you simply cant handle basic math. without using a calculator i can estimate that as about 55 secs/mile. snip oops better get the calculator out the key was his mention of closing rate. your math is for one car traveling one mile but ya got another coming at you at the same speed or half of your 55sec/mile 55/2=27.5. or more simply put two cars one mile apart traveling towards each other at 60 mph will pass each other in 30 seconds. i am so used to seeing stupid shit from him/her/it that i simply read 65mph and 27 sec per mile. i guess every once in a while even an idiot may be correct. kind of like a clock. iow you were wrong just like with the rest of your crap and are still not man enough to admit to it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : dtj
on sat 26 jun 2004 225109 -0600 idaspode not@icehouse.net wrote dont know about 2 miles but dont forget that at speeds of 65mph two cars are closing at the rate of 190.6ft/sec which equals 27.7secs/mile. how much margin do you want when passing either you are incredibly stupid or you simply cant handle basic math. without using a calculator i can estimate that as about 55 secs/mile. snip oops better get the calculator out the key was his mention of closing rate. your math is for one car traveling one mile but ya got another coming at you at the same speed or half of your 55sec/mile 55/2=27.5. or more simply put two cars one mile apart traveling towards each other at 60 mph will pass each other in 30 seconds. i am so used to seeing stupid shit from him/her/it that i simply read 65mph and 27 sec per mile. i guess every once in a while even an idiot may be correct. kind of like a clock. .
From : miles
dtj wrote i am so used to seeing stupid shit from him/her/it that i simply read 65mph and 27 sec per mile. i guess every once in a while even an idiot may be correct. kind of like a clock. oh man. thats the most lame attempt at a recovery ive seen yet. piss poor attempt to deflect your own stupidity. when youre an idiot suck it up and admit it all on your own. .
From : paul jensen
i just had to order a new one from the local dealer... $117.00! i only use them when its foggy. i agree people trying to be cool by running them all the time are morons. or trying to be seen by the morons rolling around with no lights on. .
From : edward l dowdy
or being blinded by morons like you. i just had to order a new one from the local dealer... $117.00! i only use them when its foggy. i agree people trying to be cool by running them all the time are morons. or trying to be seen by the morons rolling around with no lights on. .
From : edward l dowdy
now that was uncalled for. sorry. or being blinded by morons like you. i just had to order a new one from the local dealer... $117.00! i only use them when its foggy. i agree people trying to be cool by running them all the time are morons. or trying to be seen by the morons rolling around with no lights on. .
From : miles
edward l. dowdy wrote there is no justifiable reason to running fog lights if its not foggy. they illuminate the sides of the road close to the front of the auto much better. they come in very handy when traveling down unlit narrow roads. i use them often when traveling down dirt roads through the forest at night. they help. .
From : milesh
daniel j. stern wrote youre saying you cant see the repost either that is correct. i see 4 posts from you today and no such link in any of them. .
From : edward l dowdy
i just had to order a new one from the local dealer... $117.00! i only use them when its foggy. i agree people trying to be cool by running them all the time are morons. ed sound like one of those morons i meat on a clear night running around with there fog lights on. if they were driving lights they would come on only with the high beam lights. fog lights should never be used with high beams that is why the switch off when the high beams are turned on. in fact if legal in your area they work best with just the parking lights on in driving conditions that truly require fog lights. not when cruising the local burger queen. the factory lights that came on my 96 were a joke the ones i mounted in my homemade front bumper are a vast improvement even though they are just cheap hellas lights. the only good thing i will say about having factory fog lights is that i had the factory dash switch and wiring to use to run the relay under the hood. would be afraid to run decent fog lights through factory wiring harness alone but if you use the factory wiring to run the relay you will only draw usually 5 amps max and then run power from the under hood electrical distribution center. gary carter last i heard these are driving lights not fog lights. are these units any better in performance than your typical aftermarket foglights thanks in advance .
From : paul jensen
or being blinded by morons like you. blinded by fog lights lolol!!! .
From : daniel j stern
on mon 7 jun 2004 paul jensen wrote blinded by fog lights lolol!!! yes paul blinded by fog lamps. which part dont you understand is it the improper aim part the improper design part the higher unit luminance than headlamps part please let us know which parts giving you trouble so you can get a proper education on something you obviously dont comprehend. -stern .
From : kg
hey- you can purchase a new set of 01-04 mopar fog light kit complete in ebay for $150.00. kevin g. i just had to order a new one from the local dealer... $117.00! i only use them when its foggy. i agree people trying to be cool by running them all the time are morons. ed sound like one of those morons i meat on a clear night running around with there fog lights on. if they were driving lights they would come on only with the high beam lights. fog lights should never be used with high beams that is why the switch off when the high beams are turned on. in fact if legal in your area they work best with just the parking lights on in driving conditions that truly require fog lights. not when cruising the local burger queen. the factory lights that came on my 96 were a joke the ones i mounted in my homemade front bumper are a vast improvement even though they are just cheap hellas lights. the only good thing i will say about having factory fog lights is that i had the factory dash switch and wiring to use to run the relay under the hood. would be afraid to run decent fog lights through factory wiring harness alone but if you use the factory wiring to run the relay you will only draw usually 5 amps max and then run power from the under hood electrical distribution center. gary carter last i heard these are driving lights not fog lights. are these units any better in performance than your typical aftermarket foglights thanks in advance .
From : carolina breeze hvac
or being blinded by morons like you. blinded by fog lights lolol!!! you would be amazed at how many people install aftermarket lights deemed as fog lights and then aim the damn things so that as you are driving up on them they hit you like a seet of bright beams... i love it when they do that when i am in the van or the durango....slap on the high beams and you can about imagine the switch being ripped off the dash in order to cut them off... .
From : redneck tookover hell
blinded by fog lights lolol!!! yes paul blinded by fog lamps. which part dont you understand theres a whole bunch of folks who obviously didnt get enough attention growing up that seem to want attention by driving around with their fog lights on constantly.screaming look at me im an idiot apparently dense fog between the ears politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .
From : milesh
nosey wrote does it help to keep your dash lights dim when driving at night too it just seems more comfortable to me without the dash lights at full bright glaring at me. i like mine a bit brighter than my wife does but full bright is distracting. .
From : paul jensen
on mon 7 jun 2004 paul jensen wrote blinded by fog lights lolol!!! yes paul blinded by fog lamps. which part dont you understand is it the improper aim part the improper design part the higher unit luminance than headlamps part please let us know which parts giving you trouble so you can get a proper education on something you obviously dont comprehend. every day i encounter hundred of vehicles with their fog lights on. i meet these vehicles on 2-lane highways divided highways streets of all sorts. today i saw a sheriffs deputy rolling with his headlights and fog lights on. i have *never* been blinded by foglights. is there any part of that you do not understand these almost all seem to be factory lights. they are aimed down. while it is rare i would be more likely to be blinded by someones dim lights. i am damn sure blinded by those obnoxious aftermarket blue lights some people use. i would prefer everyone would have some sort of lights on so they can be more easier seen and until drl become mandatory fog lights are the best bet. i run mine at all times when my headlights are not on. i appreciate all other drivers who do the same. oh and what percentage of fog lights on the road today are improper aim i damn sure dont see them. .
From : paul jensen
blinded by fog lights lolol!!! yes paul blinded by fog lamps. which part dont you understand theres a whole bunch of folks who obviously didnt get enough attention growing up that seem to want attention by driving around with their fog lights on constantly.screaming look at me im an idiot apparently dense fog between the ears no its see me and dont hit me. the idiots rolling around without lights are screaming look at me - im a moron! hit me!!! .
From : edward l dowdy
if i have to replace another one. ill probably go with something aftermarket. or remove them altogether. ed on thu 27 may 2004 dave t wrote are these units any better in performance than your typical aftermarket foglights .
From : miles
denny wrote i almost hate to say this miles but this new group of your best friends almost seem to make t-bone seem personable. i bring out the best huh rofl! .
From : miles
daniel j. stern wrote oh i acknowledge that just fine. the point is that this roadside illumination is too close to your car to make any meaningful improvement in your safety at a road speed greater than approximately 30 mph. true. thats about the speed im driving on the roads where i use them. many times a bit slower. you done arguing yet .
From : 223rem
milesh wrote true when the light is aimed at the viewer. aiming light down to a dark area has a neat effect. it lights it up so you can see it. i prefer an area to be lit rather than dark. you can post all your rhetoric you wish but it doesnt change the fact that a lit area is easier to see than a dark one. the lights on my truck light up a portion of road that is otherwise black. you are one of those morons who run fog lights in clear weather. there is no real benefit for you and you blind others. but hey it makes your stupid truck look cool. .
From : milesh
dtj wrote when your opinion blinds me that is my business. it baffles me why people like you get upset when i turn on my brights in response. it further baffles me why when you then turn yours on and i am forced to drive directly at your vehicle you freak out. huh fog lights should not blind oncoming traffic. if properly adjusted they are angled down. they are useless in snow or fog if pointed to far ahead. i agree if people have mis-adjusted fogs then they should fix it or dim them to oncoming traffic. .
From : 223rem
milesh wrote dtj wrote when your opinion blinds me that is my business. it baffles me why people like you get upset when i turn on my brights in response. it further baffles me why when you then turn yours on and i am forced to drive directly at your vehicle you freak out. huh fog lights should not blind oncoming traffic. if properly adjusted they are angled down. virtually all fog light morons have theirs poining up. especially the idiots in pickup trucks and cheaper suvs. clueless imbeciles the lot of them. .
From : edward l dowdy
must be from those cool shades youre wearing. i think ill write my congressman. maybe we can get running with foglights when its not foggy classified a felony. hmmm... foglights when properly aimed arent going to help you see some idiot with no lights. theyll just blind someone who is running the proper illumination. hell probably crash into you from the searing pain in his eyes. there is no justifiable reason to running fog lights if its not foggy. ed on mon 7 jun 2004 paul jensen wrote blinded by fog lights lolol!!! .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 10 jun 2004 miles wrote there is no justifiable reason to running fog lights if its not foggy. they illuminate the sides of the road close to the front of the auto much better. which is a irrelevant because anything that close to the front of the vehicle is too close for you to do anything about and b they reduce your distance vision because the increased foreground illumination causes your eyes pupils to constrict. they help. no they provide the *illusion* of help. its different. -stern .
From : milesh
daniel j. stern wrote which is a irrelevant because anything that close to the front of the vehicle is too close for you to do anything about and b they reduce your distance vision because the increased foreground illumination causes your eyes pupils to constrict. is there no end to which you will argue on any topic on very dark narrow winding roads they greatly help. i prefer light down low to illuminate the sides directly in front. i can easily avoid obstacles showing up in this area that are difficult to see otherwise. how fast do drive on bad dark roads but in reality it is personal preference. yet here you are telling me what works or doesnt work for me. go figure. .
From : milesh
daniel j. stern wrote nope its an illusion. its been well demonstrated that the distance-vision reduction effect of high levels of foreground light is both robust and rapid that is it takes relatively small amounts of additional foreground light to cause a relatively large reduction in distance vision. true when the light is aimed at the viewer. aiming light down to a dark area has a neat effect. it lights it up so you can see it. i prefer an area to be lit rather than dark. you can post all your rhetoric you wish but it doesnt change the fact that a lit area is easier to see than a dark one. the lights on my truck light up a portion of road that is otherwise black. .
From : denny
dtj wrote when your opinion blinds me that is my business. it baffles me why people like you get upset when i turn on my brights in response. it further baffles me why when you then turn yours on and i am forced to drive directly at your vehicle you freak out. huh fog lights should not blind oncoming traffic. if properly adjusted they are angled down. they are useless in snow or fog if pointed to far ahead. i agree if people have mis-adjusted fogs then they should fix it or dim them to oncoming traffic. i almost hate to say this miles but this new group of your best friends almost seem to make t-bone seem personable. bg denny .
From : daniel j stern
on fri 11 jun 2004 pk wrote paper or not in the real world is has already helped twice - once at 55 - maybe your reaction time isnt sufficient but *mine* is. nope. your subjective impressions and typical my reaction time rules! reaction aside even instantaneous reaction time doesnt change the beam distribution of your fog lamps which does not illuminate anything you can evade at 55mph. if your fog lamps are lighting it up and its in your path and youre going 55 you *will* hit it. its just simple geomtery. -stern .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 10 jun 2004 milesh wrote which is a irrelevant because anything that close to the front of the vehicle is too close for you to do anything about and b they reduce your distance vision because the increased foreground illumination causes your eyes pupils to constrict. is there no end to which you will argue there is indeed such an end. when there is no more misinformation masquerading as facts then i dont argue. you will argue on any topic nope just those i know. on very dark narrow winding roads they greatly help. nope its an illusion. its been well demonstrated that the distance-vision reduction effect of high levels of foreground light is both robust and rapid that is it takes relatively small amounts of additional foreground light to cause a relatively large reduction in distance vision. at the same time its also well demonstrated that increased foreground light causes drivers to subjectively rate their lighting as better and you can continue to ramp the foreground light up and up and up well past the point of absolutely destroyed distance vision with the drivers continuing to say ooh yes this is much better than before. but in reality it is personal preference. nope its physiology. -stern .
From : nosey
daniel j. stern wrote on thu 10 jun 2004 milesh wrote which is a irrelevant because anything that close to the front of the vehicle is too close for you to do anything about and b they reduce your distance vision because the increased foreground illumination causes your eyes pupils to constrict. is there no end to which you will argue there is indeed such an end. when there is no more misinformation masquerading as facts then i dont argue. you will argue on any topic nope just those i know. on very dark narrow winding roads they greatly help. nope its an illusion. its been well demonstrated that the distance-vision reduction effect of high levels of foreground light is both robust and rapid that is it takes relatively small amounts of additional foreground light to cause a relatively large reduction in distance vision. at the same time its also well demonstrated that increased foreground light causes drivers to subjectively rate their lighting as better and you can continue to ramp the foreground light up and up and up well past the point of absolutely destroyed distance vision with the drivers continuing to say ooh yes this is much better than before. but in reality it is personal preference. nope its physiology. -stern does it help to keep your dash lights dim when driving at night too it just seems more comfortable to me without the dash lights at full bright glaring at me. .
From : milesh
223rem wrote you are one of those morons who run fog lights in clear weather. there is no real benefit for you and you blind others. but hey it makes your stupid truck look cool. ah yes the ever prevalent resort to name calling as a method of debate. around town i have my fogs off. even on most highways i have them off. i turn them on when driving on very dark mountain roads. in this situation i prefer it over using the high beams which turns off the fogs. if it doesnt work for you so be it. it baffles me as to why people get so bent out of shape over differing opinions. i do what i like you do what you like no problem...well you have a problem with that though. if i wanted to look cool id put those cool blue lights on that blinds oncoming traffic. no thanks. .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 10 jun 2004 nosey wrote nope its an illusion. its been well demonstrated that the distance-vision reduction effect of high levels of foreground light is both robust and rapid that is it takes relatively small amounts of additional foreground light to cause a relatively large reduction in distance vision. at the same time its also well demonstrated that increased foreground light causes drivers to subjectively rate their lighting as better and you can continue to ramp the foreground light up and up and up well past the point of absolutely destroyed distance vision with the drivers continuing to say ooh yes this is much better than before. does it help to keep your dash lights dim when driving at night too absolutely! thats why theyre on a rheostat though few people use it. there are two kinds of glare discomfort glare that which causes one discomfort or pain and disabling glare that which reduces ones ability to see to any degree. most people dont realize that there is always some degree of disabling glare with any amount of light directed towards the eyes and its common to have a great deal of glare-induced disability *without* any discomfort. -stern .
From : arif khokar
milesh wrote i turn them on when driving on very dark mountain roads. what good will it do theyre not going to light up anything further than the low beams would. if you need distance vision use the high beams. .
From : dtj
on 10 jun 2004 150642 edt milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote fogs. if it doesnt work for you so be it. it baffles me as to why people get so bent out of shape over differing opinions. i do what i when your opinion blinds me that is my business. it baffles me why people like you get upset when i turn on my brights in response. it further baffles me why when you then turn yours on and i am forced to drive directly at your vehicle you freak out. .
From : milesh
arif khokar wrote milesh wrote i turn them on when driving on very dark mountain roads. what good will it do theyre not going to light up anything further than the low beams would. if you need distance vision use the high beams. on the roads i am referring to i am not interested in distance. driving speeds are too low to worry about lighting up things way down the road. i need to see whats in front of me. the type of roads i am referring to are narrow winding dirt roads in rugged canyon areas. moonlight doesnt make it down there often. it is pitch black. if you live in areas like kansas you wouldnt understand. it is a pain when people do drive these roads with high beams. by the time you see an oncoming car and dim it is too late the driver is already blinded. .
From : arif khokar
milesh wrote huh fog lights should not blind oncoming traffic. if properly adjusted they are angled down. the problem is that it is difficult to maintain proper aim due to them being mounted in the bumper and that many drivers install crappy aftermarket glare lights which they think are fog lights. .
From : pk
on thu 10 jun 2004 214254 gmt arif khokar akhokar1234@wvu.edu wrote milesh wrote i turn them on when driving on very dark mountain roads. what good will it do theyre not going to light up anything further than the low beams would. if you need distance vision use the high beams. as mr. stern refuses to acknowledge fog lights tend at least on my ram and my wifes aztek to illuminate the sides of the road better - the shoulders and somewhat beyond. while here in kansas i dont really worry about mountain roads g i *do* worry about going deer hunting with my vehicle. ive dodged two of them so far because the fog lights lit up areas along side the road where my regular and bright lights dont reach. pk .
From : miles
arif khokar wrote the problem is that it is difficult to maintain proper aim due to them being mounted in the bumper and that many drivers install crappy aftermarket glare lights which they think are fog lights. many of the cool blue lights i see are cheap imitations of xenon/hid bulbs. they indeed have horrible glare. lights mounted in the bumper usually can be adjusted but few ever actually adjust their headlights let alone the fogs. .
From : daniel j stern
on thu 10 jun 2004 pk wrote as mr. stern refuses to acknowledge fog lights tend at least on my ram and my wifes aztek to illuminate the sides of the road better oh i acknowledge that just fine. the point is that this roadside illumination is too close to your car to make any meaningful improvement in your safety at a road speed greater than approximately 30 mph. work out the reaction time and braking distance for yourself mathematically on paper if you like. -stern .
From : daniel j stern
on fri 11 jun 2004 paul jensen wrote foglights when properly aimed arent going to help you see some idiot with no lights. of course not. but it may help the idiot see me. your guesses and opinions arent backed up by fact. .
From : john david galt
i turn them on when driving on very dark mountain roads. what good will it do theyre not going to light up anything further than the low beams would. if you need distance vision use the high beams. they wont show more of the road than the low beams but under those conditions it may very well be useful to know if theres a deer in the trees. .
From : john david galt
miles wrote many of the cool blue lights i see are cheap imitations of xenon/hid bulbs. they indeed have horrible glare. lights mounted in the bumper usually can be adjusted but few ever actually adjust their headlights let alone the fogs. the one good thing about those stupid blue lights is that they let you know the person approaching is not a cop because cop mechanics know better than to ever install the dumb things in a cop car. .
From : pk
on 10 jun 2004 183756 edt milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote arif khokar wrote milesh wrote i turn them on when driving on very dark mountain roads. what good will it do theyre not going to light up anything further than the low beams would. if you need distance vision use the high beams. on the roads i am referring to i am not interested in distance. driving speeds are too low to worry about lighting up things way down the road. i need to see whats in front of me. the type of roads i am referring to are narrow winding dirt roads in rugged canyon areas. moonlight doesnt make it down there often. it is pitch black. if you live in areas like kansas you wouldnt understand. it is a pain when people do drive these roads with high beams. by the time you see an oncoming car and dim it is too late the driver is already blinded. hey im on your side! and actually i would understand - the ozark mountains in southern missouri/arkansas are only a few hours away. the roads there would make a good substitute for any roller coaster. and on thu 10 jun 2004 pk wrote as mr. stern refuses to acknowledge fog lights tend at least on my ram and my wifes aztek to illuminate the sides of the road better oh i acknowledge that just fine. the point is that this roadside illumination is too close to your car to make any meaningful improvement in your safety at a road speed greater than approximately 30 mph. work out the reaction time and braking distance for yourself mathematically on paper if you like. -stern paper or not in the real world is has already helped twice - once at that fairly low speed in the neighborhood of 30 or so and once at 55 - maybe your reaction time isnt sufficient but *mine* is. pk .
From : roy shroyer
223rem wrote you are one of those morons who run fog lights in clear weather. there is no real benefit for you and you blind others. but hey it makes your stupid truck look cool. ah yes the ever prevalent resort to name calling as a method of debate. around town i have my fogs off. even on most highways i have them off. i turn them on when driving on very dark mountain roads. in this situation i prefer it over using the high beams which turns off the fogs. if it doesnt work for you so be it. it baffles me as to why people get so bent out of shape over differing opinions. i do what i like you do what you like no problem...well you have a problem with that though. if i wanted to look cool id put those cool blue lights on that blinds oncoming traffic. no thanks. the fog lights on my altima and my wifes outback wagon are completely useless. unless youre going less than 10 mph. on the altima the fl can be turned on independently and light the area about 15 feet in front of the car. they add nothing perceptible to me. cosmetic and a waste of space and wire. those bulbs will never wear out on my car.... the fl on the outback are equally ineffective. though they may look rugged with their plastic brush guards they are useless. ive gotten to where i turn them on when other drivers coming toward me have their fl on. sort of like flashing hi beams at others who wont turn them off. i figure if one of us is going to be bothered by glare then why not both .
From : arif khokar
pk wrote as mr. stern refuses to acknowledge fog lights tend at least on my ram and my wifes aztek to illuminate the sides of the road better - the shoulders and somewhat beyond. my low beams do that as well. the problem is that foglamps are mounted a bit lower than low beam headlamps on most cars. if they are properly aimed and are about 1 foot off the ground then using trigonometry they cannot light anything further than 100 feet in front of you either directly ahead or to the side. if youre driving 60 mph then youll cover that distance in about 1.1 seconds. the average drivers reaction time ranges from 0.8 to 1.2 seconds. .
From : paul jensen
must be from those cool shades youre wearing. i think ill write my congressman. maybe we can get running with foglights when its not foggy classified a felony. hmmm... foglights when properly aimed arent going to help you see some idiot with no lights. of course not. but it may help the idiot see me. .
From : paul jensen
on very dark narrow winding roads they greatly help. they are also great for dark unfamiliar parking lots. .
From : paul jensen
does it help to keep your dash lights dim when driving at night too it just seems more comfortable to me without the dash lights at full bright glaring at me. it doesnt matter what you think. stern will tell you what is correct and chances are youre wrong. .
From : paul jensen
you are one of those morons who run fog lights in clear weather. there is no real benefit for you and you blind others. but hey it makes your stupid truck look cool. cool or not they help the moron in the next lane who is about to cut you off see you. .
From : nosey
paul jensen wrote does it help to keep your dash lights dim when driving at night too it just seems more comfortable to me without the dash lights at full bright glaring at me. it doesnt matter what you think. stern will tell you what is correct and chances are youre wrong. not at all. ive had discussions with him in the past. he can be adamant about his conceptions but sometimes you can be right too. .
From : daniel j stern
on fri 11 jun 2004 paul jensen wrote you are one of those morons who run fog lights in clear weather. there is no real benefit for you and you blind others. but hey it makes your stupid truck look cool. cool or not they help the moron in the next lane who is about to cut you off see you. er...no they dont. thats not a part of what fog lamps do. for the moron in the next lane about to cut you off you need effective sidemarker lights and preferably also side turn signal repeaters but the effectiveness of these depends on your actual *use* of the turn signals. -stern .
From : brandon sommerville
on fri 11 jun 2004 211509 -0500 paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote you are one of those morons who run fog lights in clear weather. there is no real benefit for you and you blind others. but hey it makes your stupid truck look cool. cool or not they help the moron in the next lane who is about to cut you off see you. if hes going to cut you off hes not looking. how are your fog lights going to change that fact -- brandon sommerville remove .gov to e-mail cheney wows sept. 11 commission by drinking glass of water while bush speaks http//www.theonion.com/index.phpissue=4016 .
From : daniel j stern
on fri 11 jun 2004 paul jensen wrote it doesnt matter what you think. stern will tell you what is correct and chances are youre wrong. dont be bitter just cause im more of a lighting propellerhead than you are. im certain theres stuff you know more about than i do but automotive lighting aint it. -stern .
From : redneck tookover hell
im certain theres stuff you know more about than i do but automotive lighting aint it. probably something to do with ufos i think the limit is 3 calls a month out his way light em up !!!!!!!!!! politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .
From : dtj
on fri 11 jun 2004 211509 -0500 paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote you are one of those morons who run fog lights in clear weather. there is no real benefit for you and you blind others. but hey it makes your stupid truck look cool. cool or not they help the moron in the next lane who is about to cut you off see you. uh huh because although they are unable to see your headlights they can see those dumb fuck lights mounted under your bumper that serve no purpose but to blind oncoming traffic. you people are truly ignorant. .
From : miles
daniel j. stern wrote dont be bitter just cause im more of a lighting propellerhead than you are. im certain theres stuff you know more about than i do but automotive lighting aint it. you attempt to over analyze a given scenerio using a purely technical methodology. where you fail is in realizing the wide variations in subjective human responses. you give great details about the knowns of a situation but completely ignore the unknowns. sounds great to those that have little knowledge or experience with the given subject and situation but generally means little in actual practice. are you a politician by chance .
From : daniel j stern
on sat 12 jun 2004 miles wrote dont be bitter just cause im more of a lighting propellerhead than you are. im certain theres stuff you know more about than i do but automotive lighting aint it. you attempt to over analyze a given scenerio using a purely technical methodology. where you fail is in realizing the wide variations in subjective human responses. and what *you* fail to realize is that all the subjective responses in the world dont trump whats actually going on physically and physiologically. it doesnt matter a whit whether you think a flooded foreground makes you better able to see obstacles relevant at 55mph because the simple physical and physiological fact is that it does the opposite. when you think you can see better than you actually can youre not safer -- youre less safe. -stern .
From : bernard farquart
it doesnt matter a whit whether you think a flooded foreground define flooded foreground. a bright light up close to a person will certainly wipe out the background. mostly if the light source is direct rather than indirect. thats not the case with many fog lights. they are not floodlights and they are not direct. oh my god stand in a lighted room at night look out the open door. now turn off the light can you see outside better perhaps that is what mr.stern is trying to get across to you. bernard .
From : miles
daniel j. stern wrote and what *you* fail to realize is that all the subjective responses in the world dont trump whats actually going on physically and physiologically. oh i see. you know everyone else in the world. you know what they can and cant see and what light levels a given person reacts to both positively and negatively. it doesnt matter a whit whether you think a flooded foreground define flooded foreground. a bright light up close to a person will certainly wipe out the background. mostly if the light source is direct rather than indirect. thats not the case with many fog lights. they are not floodlights and they are not direct. makes you better able to see obstacles relevant at 55mph who said 55mph you need to scroll back and catch up to your own baseless argument. youre still arguing about something i never mentioned. because the simple physical and physiological fact is that it does the opposite. when you think you can see better than you actually can youre not safer -- youre less safe. define see better. if i can see an obstacle with my fogs on that i could not otherwise see then i am safer. maybe not to you but then you are not driving my car. if you make the claim that because of my fogs i could not see as well further down the road well you would be mistaken. it seems to me that your idea of a foglight is some monstrous floodlight that beams in all directions. my fogs are pointed low and wide to the sides. how are yours you have some right or are you just arguing on a purely technical analytical basis ill go out on a dark mountain road and take some pics. both with fogs on and fogs off. in one pic youll see some obstacles that do not show up on the other pic. guess which pic is which. .
From : dddd
there are people who will insist that wearing a motorcycle helmet is unsafe - that it causes accidents. there are people who insist that using seat belts causes more injuries than not using them. there are people that insist that drls are unsafe - that they make cars more difficult to see than those not using them or that they blind oncoming drivers. add to this list those who believe that fog lights in conditions other than fog are adding to safety and do not harm other drivers vision. it seems that once an individuals mind is made up about a situation that they favor there is nothing that can change this conception. i wont go so far as to say that it is the same group that believes in all these misconceptions but there are those who will insist that each one is true despite any logic or study that proves otherwise. these subjects make for interesting conversations and you can hear all sorts of weird justifications but in the end not a single individual will change his/her mind or be convinced in any way that he/she is wrong. just have fun stating your opinion. dddd 223rem wrote you are one of those morons who run fog lights in clear weather. there is no real benefit for you and you blind others. but hey it makes your stupid truck look cool. ah yes the ever prevalent resort to name calling as a method of debate. around town i have my fogs off. even on most highways i have them off. i turn them on when driving on very dark mountain roads. in this situation i prefer it over using the high beams which turns off the fogs. if it doesnt work for you so be it. it baffles me as to why people get so bent out of shape over differing opinions. i do what i like you do what you like no problem...well you have a problem with that though. if i wanted to look cool id put those cool blue lights on that blinds oncoming traffic. no thanks. the fog lights on my altima and my wifes outback wagon are completely useless. unless youre going less than 10 mph. on the altima the fl can be turned on independently and light the area about 15 feet in front of the car. they add nothing perceptible to me. cosmetic and a waste of space and wire. those bulbs will never wear out on my car.... the fl on the outback are equally ineffective. though they may look rugged with their plastic brush guards they are useless. ive gotten to where i turn them on when other drivers coming toward me have their fl on. sort of like flashing hi beams at others who wont turn them off. i figure if one of us is going to be bothered by glare then why not both .
From : miles
bernard farquart wrote oh my god stand in a lighted room at night look out the open door. now turn off the light can you see outside better omg hardly the same effect as fog lights aimed correctly. take a large flashlight and aim it out far. now take a small wide angled flashlight and aim it close to the ground in front of you. then look out in the distance where the large flashlight shines. now turn the small flashlight off. can you now see better i cant but thats just me. .
From : miles
dddd wrote add to this list those who believe that fog lights in conditions other than fog are adding to safety and do not harm other drivers vision. youre part of the list of those that believe that fog lights properly aimed harm other drivers vision. that belief comes from alot of people that have crappy cool blue imitation xenon/hid lights or any light they call fogs that are excessively bright or aimed incorrectly. .
From : arif khokar
miles wrote take a large flashlight and aim it out far. now take a small wide angled flashlight and aim it close to the ground in front of you. no flashlight that ive seen has the intensity of good foglamps or highbeams. then look out in the distance where the large flashlight shines. now turn the small flashlight off. can you now see better i cant but thats just me. dark adaptation is not instantaneous. direct or reflected light will lead to some degree of pupil constriction. pupil constriction reduces distance vision at night. greater foreground light will increase the degree of constriction of the pupils and will decrease your distance vision even further. .
From : decimal cat
on thu 10 jun 2004 nosey wrote does it help to keep your dash lights dim when driving at night too absolutely! thats why theyre on a rheostat though few people use it. there are two kinds of glare discomfort glare that which causes one discomfort or pain and disabling glare that which reduces ones ability to see to any degree. most people dont realize that there is always some degree of disabling glare with any amount of light directed towards the eyes and its common to have a great deal of glare-induced disability *without* any discomfort. -stern if this is the case i think some car manufacturers more or less missed the point. i tried turning the dash lights down the other night in my subaru to see if it made any difference and i can say that any good effects from it were probably negated by the fact the gear shift indicator and the high beam lights werent dimmed with the rest of it. . and they of course are right in the middle of the console. shame too because on dark rural roads it seems like it might do me some good to keep them dimmed and let my eyes adjust to the lower light. . / -- decimal cat to reply by email turn off the punk rock .
From : 223rem
miles wrote dddd wrote add to this list those who believe that fog lights in conditions other than fog are adding to safety and do not harm other drivers vision. youre part of the list of those that believe that fog lights properly aimed harm other drivers vision. that belief comes from alot of people that have crappy cool blue imitation xenon/hid lights or any light they call fogs that are excessively bright or aimed incorrectly. the vast majority of foglights are aimed incorrectly--they produce *more* glare than the lowbeams. why are you sure yours are aimed correctly .
From : daniel j stern
on sun 13 jun 2004 decimal cat wrote there are two kinds of glare discomfort glare that which causes one discomfort or pain and disabling glare that which reduces ones ability to see to any degree. most people dont realize that there is always some degree of disabling glare with any amount of light directed towards the eyes and its common to have a great deal of glare-induced disability *without* any discomfort. if this is the case i think some car manufacturers more or less missed the point. your complaint of indicator/control lights left off the rheostat circuit is common and valid. -stern .
From : daniel j stern
on sun 13 jun 2004 arif khokar wrote then look out in the distance where the large flashlight shines. now turn the small flashlight off. can you now see better i cant but thats just me. dark adaptation is not instantaneous. direct or reflected light will lead to some degree of pupil constriction. pupil constriction reduces distance vision at night. greater foreground light will increase the degree of constriction of the pupils and will decrease your distance vision even further. and what miles is disregarding is that subjective impressions on visual acuity are just as misleading as every other subjective impression we get from our senses. visual performance can be very accurately and precisely measured and what the measurements show us is that increased foreground light = reduced dark adaptation = worsened distance vision. every time in every individual. at the same time the nearly-universal *subjective* impression is better seeing from higher-and-ever-higher levels of foreground light. the unreliability of subjective impressions is very easy to demonstrate go to the kitchen and get four drinking glasses. fill one with icewater. fill one with hot water. fill two with lukewarm water of the same temperature. arrange them on the counter in front of you in this order ice lukewarm lukewarm hot. place your left hand in the icewater and your right hand in the hot water and hold them there for 30 seconds. place your left hand in the left lukewarm water and your right hand in the right lukewarm water. the left hand tells you its in warm water; the right hand tells you its in cold water. in fact both are in water of the same temperature. perception is not reality. ds .
From : miles
arif khokar wrote no flashlight that ive seen has the intensity of good foglamps or highbeams. foglamps do not need to be high intensity. too much light or improperly aimed just reflects back at the driver. greater foreground light will increase the degree of constriction of the pupils and will decrease your distance vision even further. more so for direct light rather than indirect. reaction to light varies greatly from one individual to another. some people are blinded by the slightest amount of oncoming light while driving. looks like giant starbursts. others are effected very little. i am very very far sighted. i react to light much different than someone near sided. .
From : daniel j stern
on sun 13 jun 2004 dddd wrote there are people who will insist that wearing a motorcycle helmet is unsafe - that it causes accidents. data dont back up this assertion. there are people who insist that using seat belts causes more injuries than not using them. data dont back up this assertion either. there are people that insist that drls are unsafe data are thoroughly mixed on this one. add to this list those who believe that fog lights in conditions other than fog are adding to safety and do not harm other drivers vision. data conclusively show such people to be incorrect. it seems that once an individuals mind is made up about a situation that they favor there is nothing that can change this conception. i wont go so far as to say that it is the same group that believes in all these misconceptions but there are those who will insist that each one is true despite any logic or study that proves otherwise. these subjects make for interesting conversations and you can hear all sorts of weird justifications but in the end not a single individual will change his/her mind or be convinced in any way that he/she is wrong. yep the ive already made up my mind now stop trying to confuse me with facts! types. its best to warm up your car for 20 minutes in the driveway before driving off smoking doesnt cause cancer seatbelts are dangerous hiv doesnt cause aids foglamps help you avoid deer at 55mph etc. etc. etc. -stern .
From : miles
daniel j. stern wrote and what miles is disregarding is that subjective impressions on visual acuity are just as misleading as every other subjective impression we get from our senses. visual performance can be very accurately and precisely measured and what the measurements show us is that increased foreground light = reduced dark adaptation = worsened distance vision. every time in every individual. at the same time the nearly-universal *subjective* impression is better seeing from higher-and-ever-higher levels of foreground light. in a particular test this may be true. but it is not true with my own fog lights. what is your test for determining that foglights properly aimed reduce vision if i can see an obstable with them on and not see it with them off and i can still clearly see small items signs etc in the distance then how are the foglights making my vision worse the unreliability of subjective impressions is very easy to demonstrate go to the kitchen and get four drinking glasses. fill one with icewater. fill one with hot water. fill two with lukewarm water of the same temperature. arrange them on the counter in front of you in this order ice lukewarm lukewarm hot. place your left hand in the icewater and your right hand in the hot water and hold them there for 30 seconds. place your left hand in the
From : miles
daniel j. stern wrote add to this list those who believe that fog lights in conditions other than fog are adding to safety and do not harm other drivers vision. data conclusively show such people to be incorrect. not in every single case all driving conditions all drivers and all lights and and all cars. i do agree that driving around town with fogs is generally useless. its best to warm up your car for 20 minutes in the driveway before driving off not sure about 20 minutes as it depends on ambient temp. starting a car on a winter day and immedietly driving off and onto the highway usually is hard on a cars engine or tranny. .
From : daniel j stern
on sun 13 jun 2004 223rem wrote the vast majority of foglights are aimed incorrectly--they produce *more* glare than the lowbeams. true. and the visual portions of even correctly-aimed fog lamps frequently have higher unit luminance than low beam headlamps which means more glare even with correct aim. -stern .
From : dtj
on sun 13 jun 2004 150935 gmt arif khokar akhokar1234@wvu.edu wrote miles wrote dark adaptation is not instantaneous. direct or reflected light will lead to some degree of pupil constriction. pupil constriction reduces distance vision at night. greater foreground light will increase the degree of constriction of the pupils and will decrease your distance vision even further. you are wrong ari miles is a cat and his eyes dont work like every other humans. .
From : dtj
on sun 13 jun 2004 122443 -0400 daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote on sun 13 jun 2004 dddd wrote there are people who will insist that wearing a motorcycle helmet is unsafe - that it causes accidents. data dont back up this assertion. maybe maybe not because people who do studies frequently have already made up their mind. the fact is that wearing a helmet reduces your ability to hear which can in fact cause you to not hear the idiot driver who is about to kill you. i no longer ride a bike but when i did i stopped wearing a helmet in town because it was far more dangerous. i would rather avoid an accident than simply survive one. there are people who insist that using seat belts causes more injuries than not using them. data dont back up this assertion either. the ol urban legend about the seat belt that got stuck when the car submerged not that cars submerge very often... there are people that insist that drls are unsafe data are thoroughly mixed on this one. my belief is that proper drls are probably good but the ones gm and other shitty american manufacturers use are blinding and cause other drivers problems. add to this list those who believe that fog lights in conditions other than fog are adding to safety and do not harm other drivers vision. data conclusively show such people to be incorrect. seems obvious. yep the ive already made up my mind now stop trying to confuse me with facts! types. its best to warm up your car for 20 minutes in the driveway before driving off smoking doesnt cause cancer seatbelts are dangerous hiv doesnt cause aids foglamps help you avoid deer at 55mph etc. etc. etc. it will make you go blind... .
From : dtj
on sun 13 jun 2004 094103 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote in a particular test this may be true. but it is not true with my own fog lights. what is your test for determining that foglights properly aimed reduce vision if i can see an obstable with them on and not see it with them off and i can still clearly see small items signs etc in the distance then how are the foglights making my vision worse stop being an idiot and pay attention. we are not discussing what you can see we are discussing what you can not see. the objects that you can not see when you have fog lights on may very well be visible with them off. .
From : dtj
on sun 13 jun 2004 094614 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote not sure about 20 minutes as it depends on ambient temp. starting a car on a winter day and immedietly driving off and onto the highway usually is hard on a cars engine or tranny. which would explain why my car with more than 150000 miles does not burn a drop of oil. must be that my car is special because i do this every fucking day. i guess you are special too. in a special education kind of way. .
From : pk
on fri 11 jun 2004 105830 -0400 daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote on fri 11 jun 2004 pk wrote paper or not in the real world is has already helped twice - once at 55 - maybe your reaction time isnt sufficient but *mine* is. nope. your subjective impressions and typical my reaction time rules! reaction aside even instantaneous reaction time doesnt change the beam distribution of your fog lamps which does not illuminate anything you can evade at 55mph. if your fog lamps are lighting it up and its in your path and youre going 55 you *will* hit it. its just simple geomtery. -stern that would be presuming that everyones eyes are equally sensitive to light and that everyone needs to see the same detail to figure out what is there at night. when i was tooling along at 55-60 which i admit was too fast the conditions if i was expecting deer in the road i saw right out at the limits of visibility a couple of vertical lines on the shoulder. i didnt brake because i saw a deer i braked because i saw a *hint* of a deer. if the fog lights hadnt been adding their light to the normal low beams light on the shoulder i wouldnt have seen her so far out and i *would* have smacked her as she walked into the road. pk .
From : arif khokar
daniel j. stern wrote visual performance can be very accurately and precisely measured and what the measurements show us is that increased foreground light = reduced dark adaptation = worsened distance vision. i take it that the same principle applies to those who drive vehicles with hid lamps. that probably explains why i like to keep my highbeams on as much as possible when driving on the highway. i hardly use my fog lamps though. every time in every individual. at the same time the nearly-universal *subjective* impression is better seeing from higher-and-ever-higher levels of foreground light. it certainly seems that way. my low beams actually light up the entire road including the right shoulder the 30 foot median and the opposite side of the road. it doesnt help me see any further without using the highbeams though. unfortunately my hid lamps do not shut off when i switch on the highbeams. .
From : nate nagel
pk wrote on fri 11 jun 2004 105830 -0400 daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote on fri 11 jun 2004 pk wrote paper or not in the real world is has already helped twice - once at 55 - maybe your reaction time isnt sufficient but *mine* is. nope. your subjective impressions and typical my reaction time rules! reaction aside even instantaneous reaction time doesnt change the beam distribution of your fog lamps which does not illuminate anything you can evade at 55mph. if your fog lamps are lighting it up and its in your path and youre going 55 you *will* hit it. its just simple geomtery. -stern that would be presuming that everyones eyes are equally sensitive to light and that everyone needs to see the same detail to figure out what is there at night. when i was tooling along at 55-60 which i admit was too fast the conditions if i was expecting deer in the road i saw right out at the limits of visibility a couple of vertical lines on the shoulder. i didnt brake because i saw a deer i braked because i saw a *hint* of a deer. if the fog lights hadnt been adding their light to the normal low beams light on the shoulder i wouldnt have seen her so far out and i *would* have smacked her as she walked into the road. pk then your fog lights suck because they shouldnt add anything to the low beams range. if they do they are not true fog lights and will actually hurt your vision in the fog. nate -- go dry to reply. http//www.toad.net/njnagel .
From : daniel j stern
on sun 13 jun 2004 arif khokar wrote visual performance can be very accurately and precisely measured and what the measurements show us is that increased foreground light = reduced dark adaptation = worsened distance vision. i take it that the same principle applies to those who drive vehicles with hid lamps. yep. lamp makers have been actively working to *decrease* the foreground illumination provided by hid low beams but its tough to do that and still comply with the photometric maxima contained at other parts of the beam. unfortunately my hid lamps do not shut off when i switch on the highbeams. this is another gotchya -- theyre not allowed to because they take too long to come up to full intensity when switched off and then back on. this is a very strong argument for bixenon type systems where the one optic produces both low and high beams from just the one hid burner but its also a strong argument for us headlamp regulations to stop restricting high beam intensity to half that permitted in the rest of the world. -stern .
From : daniel j stern
on sun 13 jun 2004 pk wrote your subjective impressions and typical my reaction time rules! reaction aside even instantaneous reaction time doesnt change the beam distribution of your fog lamps which does not illuminate anything you can evade at 55mph. if your fog lamps are lighting it up and its in your path and youre going 55 you *will* hit it. its just simple geomtery. that would be presuming that everyones eyes are equally sensitive to light no such assumption is involved in the simple geometry that determine the answer to the question. -stern .
From : dtj
on sun 13 jun 2004 153853 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote dtj wrote which would explain why my car with more than 150000 miles does not burn a drop of oil. must be that my car is special because i do this every fucking day. i guess you are special too. in a special education kind of way. sigh i here this load of crap about any subject. some guy writes in he has been running synthetic oil for 150000 miles without an oil change. so therefore the conclusion is that oil changes are pointless. good grief. good use of foul language to make yourself more credible in your ability to debate and substantiate your claims. maybe when you grow up your mommy will allow you to use big words too. .
From : dtj
on mon 14 jun 2004 161402 -0500 paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote dont be bitter just cause im more of a lighting propellerhead than you are. im certain theres stuff you know more about than i do but automotive lighting aint it. i dont give a crap what you think you know. where i live people are killed in automobile accidents almost every day. often the innocent get yep. it only happens in your neighborhood. nobody dies anywhere else. killed. hardly a week goes by without an article in the paper where the survivor says something to the effect of i pulled out because i never saw him coming. so despite whatever you think you know light boy im rolling around with my lights on 24/7 and in the daytime ill use my fog lights just to give my headlights a break and if you dont like it thats too damn bad! maybe you should go to www.iknowitall.com .
From : miles
dtj wrote on sun 13 jun 2004 094103 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote in a particular test this may be true. but it is not true with my own fog lights. what is your test for determining that foglights properly aimed reduce vision if i can see an obstable with them on and not see it with them off and i can still clearly see small items signs etc in the distance then how are the foglights making my vision worse stop being an idiot and pay attention. we are not discussing what you can see we are discussing what you can not see. the objects that you can not see when you have fog lights on may very well be visible with them off. read what i wrote above. above i mentioned being able to see small items with my fogs off that i can still see with my fogs on. i asked what your test is for determining that in 100% of cases with 100% of people in 100% of cars using 100% of the foglights made that vision is worse with them on. .
From : miles
dddd wrote i would venture to say based on totally unscientific analysis that 99.9 percent of fog lights on cars over 6 months old are missaimed. have you had yours checked lately i dont have hid lights now but had them on my lexus that i have sold. they were great and the next car i buy will have them. only the factory installed hid lights are reliably aimed though and the fake blue lights are a joke. as for my factory fog lights i havent had them on since i bought the car and i dont believe that i have ever used them on any car i have ever owned. i very very seldom drive in fog. i rarely drive in fog here in az but do drive in snow quite often ya it snows heavy in az at times. fog is rare in arizona but one or two days a year well have bad fog in a few scattered areas. .
From : miles
dtj wrote which would explain why my car with more than 150000 miles does not burn a drop of oil. must be that my car is special because i do this every fucking day. i guess you are special too. in a special education kind of way. sigh i here this load of crap about any subject. some guy writes in he has been running synthetic oil for 150000 miles without an oil change. so therefore the conclusion is that oil changes are pointless. good grief. good use of foul language to make yourself more credible in your ability to debate and substantiate your claims. .
From : miles
nate nagel wrote then your fog lights suck because they shouldnt add anything to the low beams range. if they do they are not true fog lights and will actually hurt your vision in the fog. true they do not add to the distance range. they do add to the lower range field of view. low beams often do not light up the edges of the road. they light up the road directly in front of the vehicle. my fogs are wider angled and light up the sides of the road. they do not light up further than the low beams and light up much less in front. the combination of the two provide me the best situation when on dark canyon roads fog or no fog. .
From : arif khokar
miles wrote nate nagel wrote then your fog lights suck because they shouldnt add anything to the low beams range. if they do they are not true fog lights and will actually hurt your vision in the fog. true they do not add to the distance range. they do add to the lower range field of view. low beams often do not light up the edges of the road. they light up the road directly in front of the vehicle. which illustrates the problem of the fmvss 108 standard. ece lowbeams have wider distribution of foreground light. my fogs are wider angled and light up the sides of the road. my low beams do that. my fog lamps do increase the foreground light to some degree but they do not light up the sides of the road any better than the low beams. they do not light up further than the low beams and light up much less in front. the combination of the two provide me the best situation when on dark canyon roads fog or no fog. when im driving on dark mountain roads here in wv i find that the highbeams provide the best distribution of light on and off the road. the light up the road much further than the low beams and/or foglamps ever could. .
From : dddd
i would venture to say based on totally unscientific analysis that 99.9 percent of fog lights on cars over 6 months old are missaimed. have you had yours checked lately i dont have hid lights now but had them on my lexus that i have sold. they were great and the next car i buy will have them. only the factory installed hid lights are reliably aimed though and the fake blue lights are a joke. as for my factory fog lights i havent had them on since i bought the car and i dont believe that i have ever used them on any car i have ever owned. i very very seldom drive in fog. dddd dddd wrote add to this list those who believe that fog lights in conditions other than fog are adding to safety and do not harm other drivers vision. youre part of the list of those that believe that fog lights properly aimed harm other drivers vision. that belief comes from alot of people that have crappy cool blue imitation xenon/hid lights or any light they call fogs that are excessively bright or aimed incorrectly. .
From : paul jensen
on fri 11 jun 2004 paul jensen wrote dont be bitter just cause im more of a lighting propellerhead than you are. im certain theres stuff you know more about than i do but automotive lighting aint it. i dont give a crap what you think you know. where i live people are killed in automobile accidents almost every day. often the innocent get killed. hardly a week goes by without an article in the paper where the survivor says something to the effect of i pulled out because i never saw him coming. so despite whatever you think you know light boy im rolling around with my lights on 24/7 and in the daytime ill use my fog lights just to give my headlights a break and if you dont like it thats too damn bad! maybe you should go to www.iknowitall.com .
From : dtj
on sun 13 jun 2004 204637 -0400 dddd someone@some.one wrote i would venture to say based on totally unscientific analysis that 99.9 percent of fog lights on cars over 6 months old are missaimed. what gives you the opinion that those newer than six months are not misaligned .
From : dddd
on sun 13 jun 2004 204637 -0400 dddd someone@some.one wrote i would venture to say based on totally unscientific analysis that 99.9 percent of fog lights on cars over 6 months old are missaimed. what gives you the opinion that those newer than six months are not misaligned totally unscientific analysis. dddd .
From : jerry
they make an exhaust brake for the pick up w/ cummins andy after research here and on the rvforum it looks like several folks say that the engine brake would be nice or would help etc... but nobody seems to have one.. seems like if they were that good or that important there would be a lot of folks out there with them right im starting to feel that its not worth the hassle but im open to opinions.. mac .
From : bernard farquart
daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 writes on tue 15 jun 2004 robert hancock wrote such a device would be an electric supercharger - these do exist but i believe they can only produce a few pounds of boost with a ridiculously high-speed fan motor.. ...powered by the alternator on the vehicle. there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. it is not the fan/supercharger that produces the extra power. it doesnt matter if the power to the fan/sc comes from a belt driven by the crank or from electricity produced by the alternator which incidently normally is driven by a belt off the crank ;- the power of course comes from the extra air/fuel charge you cram into the engine. thomas .
From : arif khokar
beekeep wrote thats what he does. he makes one heck of a grouchy ol woman. somebody has to replace budd. beekeep what happened to butt budd .
From : dtj
on 16 jun 2004 104150 edt milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote bernard farquart wrote what the f*ck are you living in the land of drunk drivers you either are full of shit or you live in a town full of drunken idiots. sometimes drunk but usually not. theyre idiots and they live in every major city in the country and many smaller ones as well. you are a liar. there are approximately 40000 deaths each year in automobiles. this is about 100 per day. you said people die where you live every day. that means more than one each day. if we assume there are 1000 towns and cities in each state maybe too high maybe too low then there are 50000 towns in the country. 100 / 50000 is ..002 accidents per town per day on average. your town averages 100 times as many accidents. that makes you a liar or an idiot maybe both. .
From : dtj
on tue 15 jun 2004 050051 gmt bernard farquart bfarquart@notmyemail.net wrote the ol urban legend about the seat belt that got stuck when the car submerged not that cars submerge very often... my cousin had an accident in the sacramento river delta area on a levee road flipped her car and was able to only get one of her two children out of the sinking car due to seatbelts. not a legend just not the most common accident in the world. bernard my condolences on your loss. i am sorry to hear that someone you knew perished in an accident. i have a serious question though. do you know what prevented her from getting the second child out was it a faulty seat belt or was it just lack of time or something else i only ask because the urban legend is that seat belts can not be unclipped after an accident. i doubt that occurs but it would be interesting to hear if it did from someone who is trustworthy. .
From : dtj
on 15 jun 2004 070112 gmt mopar440@aol.comnet.org redneck tookover hell wrote poor people will be born without assholes you must be rich! so many garys ..so.. clyde .
From : miles
dtj wrote why jerry will he be arrested if he doesnt use words correctly just because you dont like a word like fuck cunt shit piss or douchebag does not mean it bothers everybody. they are just words. where did i say it bothered me .
From : edward l dowdy
one simple question. its taken on a life of its own! ed if i have to replace another one. ill probably go with something aftermarket. or remove them altogether. ed on thu 27 may 2004 dave t wrote are these units any better in performance than your typical aftermarket foglights .
From : dtj
on wed 16 jun 2004 063643 gmt bernard farquart bfarquart@notmyemail.net wrote it was a problem with the car sinking and she had to work the seatbelts underwater the kids couldnt do it she got one out then couldnt get the other cause the car had gone too deep. not a defect per se just a complex move in a difficult situation. bernard again i am very sorry. .
From : dtj
on wed 16 jun 2004 135304 gmt jerry jlrice1655@earthlink.net wrote no but it might give the impression that he is as dumb as you are........... im sure he wouldnt want that. doesnt matter to me what words you use to express your communication skills or lack of but it certainly isnt a sign of manhood that you eluded to. jerry careful you might make someone cry. .
From : bernard farquart
i dont give a crap what you think you know. where i live people are killed in automobile accidents almost every day. often the innocent get killed. hardly a week goes by without an article in the paper where the survivor says something to the effect of i pulled out because i never saw him coming. what the f*ck are you living in the land of drunk drivers you either are full of shit or you live in a town full of drunken idiots. bernard .
From : bernard farquart
my condolences on your loss. i am sorry to hear that someone you knew perished in an accident. i have a serious question though. do you know what prevented her from getting the second child out was it a faulty seat belt or was it just lack of time or something else i only ask because the urban legend is that seat belts can not be unclipped after an accident. i doubt that occurs but it would be interesting to hear if it did from someone who is trustworthy. it was a problem with the car sinking and she had to work the seatbelts underwater the kids couldnt do it she got one out then couldnt get the other cause the car had gone too deep. not a defect per se just a complex move in a difficult situation. bernard .
From : milesh
bernard farquart wrote what the f*ck are you living in the land of drunk drivers you either are full of shit or you live in a town full of drunken idiots. sometimes drunk but usually not. theyre idiots and they live in every major city in the country and many smaller ones as well. .
From : jerry
dtj wrote on tue 15 jun 2004 031400 gmt jerry jlrice1655@earthlink.net wrote sigh i here this load of crap about any subject. some guy writes in he has been running synthetic oil for 150000 miles without an oil change. so therefore the conclusion is that oil changes are pointless. good grief. good use of foul language to make yourself more credible in your ability to debate and substantiate your claims. maybe when you grow up your mommy will allow you to use big words too. not if his mommy raises him correctly. jerry why jerry will he be arrested if he doesnt use words correctly no but it might give the impression that he is as dumb as you are........... im sure he wouldnt want that. doesnt matter to me what words you use to express your communication skills or lack of but it certainly isnt a sign of manhood that you eluded to. jerry .
From : paul jensen
paul jensen wrote daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote dont be bitter just cause im more of a lighting propellerhead than you are. im certain theres stuff you know more about than i do but automotive lighting aint it. i dont give a crap what you think you know. where i live people are killed in automobile accidents almost every day. so why dont you crawl under your bed and stay there. the world is a dangerous place you know and driving with headlights on 24/7 doesnt help. if you believe that then you are a complete moron. .
From : paul jensen
i dont give a crap what you think you know. where i live people are killed in automobile accidents almost every day. often the innocent get killed. hardly a week goes by without an article in the paper where the survivor says something to the effect of i pulled out because i never saw him coming. what the f*ck are you living in the land of drunk drivers you either are full of shit or you live in a town full of drunken idiots. no i live in florida where there is no driver education the place is full of tourists who dont know where theyre going and everybody drives like idiots. my neighbor had his truck totaled a few years ago going down the highway legally at 65 mph in broad daylight and some bimbo pulled right out in front of him from a stop sign. happens all the time. dont know if having lights on would have prevented that but theres a damn sure better chance that it would help than hurt. .
From : nate nagel
paul jensen wrote paul jensen wrote daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote dont be bitter just cause im more of a lighting propellerhead than you are. im certain theres stuff you know more about than i do but automotive lighting aint it. i dont give a crap what you think you know. where i live people are killed in automobile accidents almost every day. so why dont you crawl under your bed and stay there. the world is a dangerous place you know and driving with headlights on 24/7 doesnt help. if you believe that then you are a complete moron. i see two assertions 1 the world is a dangerous place. true. if you dont keep your wits about you you can get fucked over pretty badly. ive seen it happen. 2 driving with headlights on 24/7 doesnt help. true. studies have shown no real benefit to running with headlights on and/or drls. so whos the moron nate -- go dry to reply. http//www.toad.net/njnagel .
From : nate nagel
paul jensen wrote i dont give a crap what you think you know. where i live people are killed in automobile accidents almost every day. often the innocent get killed. hardly a week goes by without an article in the paper where the survivor says something to the effect of i pulled out because i never saw him coming. what the f*ck are you living in the land of drunk drivers you either are full of shit or you live in a town full of drunken idiots. no i live in florida where there is no driver education the place is full of tourists who dont know where theyre going and everybody drives like idiots. my neighbor had his truck totaled a few years ago going down the highway legally at 65 mph in broad daylight and some bimbo pulled right out in front of him from a stop sign. happens all the time. dont know if having lights on would have prevented that but theres a damn sure better chance that it would help than hurt. it would have hurt if the sun was behind him. nate -- go dry to reply. http//www.toad.net/njnagel .
From : paul jensen
on 16 jun 2004 104150 edt milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote bernard farquart wrote what the f*ck are you living in the land of drunk drivers you either are full of shit or you live in a town full of drunken idiots. sometimes drunk but usually not. theyre idiots and they live in every major city in the country and many smaller ones as well. you are a liar. there are approximately 40000 deaths each year in automobiles. this is about 100 per day. you said people die where you live every day. that means more than one each day. if we assume there are 1000 towns and cities in each state maybe too high maybe too low then there are 50000 towns in the country. 100 / 50000 is .002 accidents per town per day on average. your town averages 100 times as many accidents. that makes you a liar or an idiot maybe both. what are you a dumbass first i said nearly every day and i live in a densly populated area of florida where i am sure there are more traffic fatalities then there are in redneck wyoming. my town has a quarter of a million people in it and traffic deaths here are high. are you really stupid enough to think traffc fatalities are evenly divided amongst all towns in the country lol!! .
From : bernard farquart
i dont give a crap what you think you know. where i live people are killed in automobile accidents almost every day. often the innocent get killed. hardly a week goes by without an article in the paper where the survivor says something to the effect of i pulled out because i never saw him coming. what the f*ck are you living in the land of drunk drivers you either are full of shit or you live in a town full of drunken idiots. no i live in florida is that a yes where there is no driver education the place is full of tourists who dont know where theyre going and everybody drives like idiots. my neighbor had his truck totaled a few years ago going down the highway legally at 65 mph in broad daylight and some bimbo pulled right out in front of him from a stop sign. happens all the time. dont know if having lights on would have prevented that but theres a damn sure better chance that it would help than hurt. so first people were dying in your town constantlynearly every day now your neighbor got his truck wrecked a few years ago people really do die nearly everyday in accidents in my town but we dont proudly speak of how we were too out of it to see the other car coming i guess thats the difference. bernard .
From : miles
dtj wrote that makes you a liar or an idiot maybe both. muhahaha! if youre gonna throw a temper tantrum at least quote the right person you wish to call names. i never said any of what you ranted about. i simply said there are idiots in every town. now let me know what town you live in so i can mark that one off as being verified. .
From : bernard farquart
on wed 16 jun 2004 063643 gmt bernard farquart bfarquart@notmyemail.net wrote it was a problem with the car sinking and she had to work the seatbelts underwater the kids couldnt do it she got one out then couldnt get the other cause the car had gone too deep. not a defect per se just a complex move in a difficult situation. bernard again i am very sorry. thanks it was a long time ago but i still think about it when i drive along rivers. bernard .
From : redneck tookover hell
so first people were dying in your town constantlynearly every day now your neighbor got his truck wrecked a few years ago its amazing what lengths people will go to when they are losing the argument politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .
From : dddd
paul jensen wrote paul jensen wrote daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote dont be bitter just cause im more of a lighting propellerhead than you are. im certain theres stuff you know more about than i do but automotive lighting aint it. i dont give a crap what you think you know. where i live people are killed in automobile accidents almost every day. so why dont you crawl under your bed and stay there. the world is a dangerous place you know and driving with headlights on 24/7 doesnt help. if you believe that then you are a complete moron. i see two assertions 1 the world is a dangerous place. true. if you dont keep your wits about you you can get fucked over pretty badly. ive seen it happen. 2 driving with headlights on 24/7 doesnt help. true. studies have shown no real benefit to running with headlights on and/or drls. so whos the moron nate -- go dry to reply. http//www.toad.net/njnagel point me to such a study! dddd .
From : redneck tookover hell
yes red. it certainly is. well thepussy the boys put your crackwhore ass out on the street again politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .