On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:49:11 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

On 08/22/2015 07:32 AM, Mayayana wrote:

While we're at it, I'm curious how many accidents are
caused by ridiculous flashing light overkill on emergency
vehicles. Police and firefighters just can't seem to resist
the childish thrill of adding yet another light. Police cars
used to have a blue "bubble gum machine" on top. It
worked fine. Now they have dozens of flashing lights in
every color. The problem: It's impossible to tell where an
emergency vehicle is going. Even if they use turn signals,
there's no time to figure out which lights on this high-speed,
psychedelic Christmas tree are signalling.

Glad I'm not the only one. The stupid things aren't on long enough for
our eyes to focus on them, and the next one is in a different place.
And what about that stupid chartreuse color that some cities are
painting their fire engines? So it's NOT a natural color, that doesn't
make it stand out any better. FIRE ENGINES ARE RED. PERIOD.


The fire engine color is based on the same faulty logic of DRL's.
Studies have shown that you can see a Chartreuse colored fire engine
from farther away then a red painted one. Therefore, as the logic
goes, Chartreuse must be a better color to paint a fire engine. That
fallacy of that, as well as of DRL's, is that there is no need to see
a fire engine that is so far away that if it were red you would not
notice it. When it's that far away it's just not of any significance
to you. The same is true of DRL's. It's true that a DRL car can be
seen farther away. But no one needs to see a car that's a mile away,
they only need to see the ones within perhaps a quarter mile of them
and the worst drive is more then able to see a car without any DRL's
at that distance. That's why the studies of DRL's show that there is
no net safety benefit. Some types of accidents go down and other
types of accidents go up because while people look at the DRL's they
fail to see other cars coming crossways toward them, cars that they
would have normally noticed if those bright lights up ahead of them
hadn't distracted them from the actual danger that was just off to
their right or left.


And have any Los Angeles residents noticed how few lights there are on
the overhead freeway signs no? I suspect that it just costs too much to
replace them. I can read the signs at a reasonable distance if I have
my lights on high, but that seems really rude -- in spite of the fact
that perhaps 1/4 of the drivers don't understand that their high beams
are to be used only OCCASIONALLY.


The gvt doesn't want to pay for the electric to turn them on nor to
maintain them, it's strictly to save costs. There are better sign
materials that would make it so you don't need to use your high beams
as much but that stuff costs more so the gvt will either simply not
use it cuz they don't want to pay for it, or they will use it but not
before the old stuff is completely worn out. Since the sign sheeting
is expected to last around 10 to 20 years don't expect to see it
replaced any time soon.

And what about those banks of bright lights they use when working on the
freeways at night? They ALWAYS point them directly into oncoming
traffic. It's like they WANT to cause crashes.


Most of those workers have no idea about safety to the public, they
just stick em wherever it's convenient for themselves and a light that
shines ALL AROUND works a lot better, and you need less of them, then
a light that is directional and shines mostly downward so it won't
blind people. As you should know by now, gvt isn't there to serve
you, you are there to serve it. Pay your taxes and shut up.