On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 04:24:38 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:04:29 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/12/2016 04:30 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
Those stupid things should be banned, they're a distraction. Lights are
to inform you of.... someone making a turn, an ambulance, etc, etc. If
everybody has lights, you no longer notice things you should, you don't
see unlit things like pedestrians, etc. In countries like Austria where
they did proper surveys, they found that they INCREASE accidents by 12%.


Absolutely. Running daytime lights on a bike probably doesn't buy you
much in terms of people seeing you but it's at least a little edge. When
everyone's lights are on that little edge goes away.

The edge does NOT go away. Wheather a bike or a car, SOMETHING is
occupying the road ahead coming your direction. Hitting a car head on
isn't going to do any less damage to you than hitting a bike - - -

Look up "crying wolf". The more things lit up, the less you will notice the few things that used to be lit up like motorbikes. Motorbikes are no longer standing out from cars.

If you can't see a car without a light on it, please surrender your license immediately.

--
Cindy once remarked to her dentist that she didn't know what would be worse - having a baby, or having a tooth pulled.
The Dentist replied, "Well make up your mind, Cindy - because I need to know which way to position the chair."

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:09:15 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/12/2016 09:28 PM, wrote:
150 meters, by the way, is well over 150 feet. ( like about 165)

More like 500... or 492 to be exact. I'm glad to see us Yanks are better
at converting metric to English than Canadians. I can even figure out
100 kph is 62 mph without a calculator. I will admit I throw my hands up
in despair at going from loonies per liter to dollars per gallon. I did
have the sneaky suspicion I was getting raped at the pump in Alberta and
it was better I didn't know exactly how badly.

If you thought you were being raped in Alberta be glad you were not
driving in Quebec - or even Ontario. (and my math isn't so bad - I
just saw 150 and thought 50 - - - -

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 04:19:59 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:44:50 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/12/2016 04:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
An even stupider thing about daytime running lights is they don't turn
the tail lights on, which means there are now loads of people driving
around at night with only the front lights on, not realising they are
unlit at the back. If you have no front lights on in the day, when it
gets dark you notice.

Been there, done that, and had a hard time explaining to the cop that
headlights with no tail lights did not mean the tail lights were
defective. That I had to explain how it worked speaks to the relatively
few vehicles with DRL's here.
And the "ignorance" of law enforcement officers

No, the stupidity of the car manufacturer. If the front lights are going to be on all the time, then so should the back ones, that's how Volvos always worked.

Anyway, not putting on your taillights is just as bad if not a worse offence than having defective ones, as you could say you didn't realise they were defective.

--
You have reached the CPX-2000 Voice Blackmail System. Your voice patterns are now being digitally encoded and stored for later use. Once this is done, our computers will be able to use the sound of YOUR voice for literally thousands of illegal and immoral purposes. There is no charge for this initial consultation. However our staff of professional extortionists will contact you in the near future to further explain the benefits of our service, and to arrange for your schedule of payment. Remember to speak clearly at the sound of the tone. Thank you.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 04:22:28 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:53:41 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/12/2016 04:33 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:48:05 -0000, Mr. Emann wrote:

On 2/12/2016 11:30 AM, philo wrote:

Yes, even with my lights in the "off" position there are still "running
lights". I don't know if there is anyway to turn them off completely

The daylight running lights on my truck will turn off when the emergency
brake is set. If I want to turn them off I just push the emergency brake
pedal just far enough to turn off the lights but not enough to engage
the brakes.

So people who use the emergency/hand/parking brake at junctions will
make their lights go on and off, that's really stupid.


It does have its drawbacks. My Toyota with DRL's did that and it was a
manual transmission. When I come home at night I stop at the cluster
mailbox to get the mail. If it's dusk or full dark, I sort through my
keys in front of the headlight. With that feature, I'd shift into
neutral, put the handbrake on, and my light source would go off.

No it would not. The headlights stay on. Only the DRL goes out with
the parking brake on.
DR:s are not headlights. In MOST cases they use the headlight bulb but
run at roughly half output. Some (like Chrysler Minivans) use the side
marker (AKA parking) lamps

He said "if it's dusk or full dark", so he was including a time of day when it's too early to need lights, and he'd just have the DRLs on.

--
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia - The fear of long words.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 02:53:41 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/12/2016 04:33 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:48:05 -0000, Mr. Emann wrote:

On 2/12/2016 11:30 AM, philo wrote:

Yes, even with my lights in the "off" position there are still "running
lights". I don't know if there is anyway to turn them off completely

The daylight running lights on my truck will turn off when the emergency
brake is set. If I want to turn them off I just push the emergency brake
pedal just far enough to turn off the lights but not enough to engage
the brakes.

So people who use the emergency/hand/parking brake at junctions will
make their lights go on and off, that's really stupid.


It does have its drawbacks. My Toyota with DRL's did that and it was a
manual transmission. When I come home at night I stop at the cluster
mailbox to get the mail. If it's dusk or full dark, I sort through my
keys in front of the headlight. With that feature, I'd shift into
neutral, put the handbrake on, and my light source would go off.

I always switch off the engine in a manual when I get out even for a few seconds. It's easier than making sure it's in nuetral and the handbrake is on. It's second nature to slip it into gear, switch off the engine, and apply the handbrake, I do it without having to think about it. If I try to do what you do, I end up leaving it in gear and it lurches forwards, or it's on a hill and the handbrake won't hold it by itself.

--
Aisle oven ice bitters are chasm!

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 07:39:58 -0000, Micky wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:39:08 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:36:28 -0000, Micky wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:33:20 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:39:08 -0000, Micky wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:48:05 -0600, "Mr. Emann"
wrote:

On 2/12/2016 11:30 AM, philo wrote:

Yes, even with my lights in the "off" position there are still "running
lights". I don't know if there is anyway to turn them off completely

The daylight running lights on my truck will turn off when the emergency
brake is set. If I want to turn them off I just push the emergency brake
pedal just far enough to turn off the lights but not enough to engage
the brakes.

Yeah, I finally found out how to run the engine with the lights off,
as you say, in case I want to surveil

My newsreader says that isn't a word, sounds cool though.

I'm not surprised. It's new-speak, from cop shows. I woudln't
normally use it but I was playing a role.

Yes, I first heard it on an American cop show. I didn't realise they'd made it up, I thought it was just too rare for me to have heard it before.

my girlfriend on a cold night,

Won't she hear the engine?

She's inside and I'm across the street and two houses down. It's a
quiet engine also.

But I've actually never done this.

So you say....

I offered to go over to my ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend's house and
see if his car was there or not, after she had asked if I would. But
then she changed her mind.

Why does she want her ex to spy on her new one?

And I did go to my dentist's home one night, after no one called me
back after I called his emergency number and the 3 office numbers, one
of which, based on the answering machine, seemed like it was his home
number instead. Unfortunately, he had a long not-straight driveway
and trees and I couldn't see if his car was there or not.

He called me the next morning, Saturday, at 11, but he called on my
cell, after I gave him that number only for Friday morning, and he
left a message that he was out of town and would call me when he got
back in a few hours. (Maybe he was in DC which is only an hour away).
But then he never called and never answered my email. He made two
other big mistakes in treatment that month too, the exact same mistake
twice. What a jerk.

Eventually I'm going to go to his office to get him to talk to me. If
he's embarrassed in front of his other patients, that would be fine.

Doesn't your dental practice have more than one dentist? If I have a toothache and my regular dentist is away, I can use another one.

But what if I want to turn the lights on when the car is not running?
A 2000 Toyota. I still don't know how to do that?

Use normal headlights like people did before all this bull****.

I already own the car and I own the headlights that are in it. There
is no room for a second set of headlights. So that won't work.

Huh? All cars have headlights. Operate the headlight switch. The headlights come on.

I don't think they do.

Nothing to do with the car being running or not.

The switch is on all the time, and the lights go on when the engine
goes on. The photocell on the dash determines which lights go on. But
maybe if I turn the switch off and back on again, the lights really
will go on even if the engine's not running. I'll try it. I had
this all settled two or three years ago, but then I forgot how it
works. This plan doens't ring a bell, but maybe.

Are you saying your car won't allow headlights if the engine is off, or it won't allow them if it's light? Both could be bypassed with a simple rewire.

--
They say that when a man holds a woman's hand before marriage, it is
love; after marriage it is self-defense.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:15:10 -0700, Don Y
wrote:

On 2/12/2016 9:41 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:14:08 -0700, Don Y
wrote:

On 2/12/2016 8:51 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:16:42 -0700, Don Y
wrote:

On 2/12/2016 10:06 AM, KenK wrote:
Just about pulled out in front of a car with lights out early this morning.
Not even parking lights. A few seconds earlier...

Why do these people drive with lights out? Save gas - engine runs easier
without generating electricity for lights? Seems I've seen many more of
them in the past year for some reason.

What about defective head/tail/signal lamps? I consciously notice which
lamps are lit (headlamp/running lamp/turn signal) each time I pull up
behind a vehicle with some of mine lit. Likewise, notice in the
rear view mirror if one side of the car behind me is "less red"
(from my brake lights) while we're sitting at a stop light.

Periodically will "linger" behind the car as we are exiting the
house and ask SWMBO (driving) to tap brakes, turn signals, etc.
so I can verify their operation.

How could you *not* "notice" that the light in front of your vehicle
is uneven" Or, that there is no "yellow glow" apparent alongside your
vehicle from your turn signal?

[Ans: because you're simply not noticing MOST of the things that you
SHOULD be noticing while driving!]
Virtually all vehicles will let you know if a signal is out by
changing the flash rate - either faster or no flash, depending on the
flasher used.

Perhaps in the days of thermoelectric flashers. Nowadays, when the
flasher is a few lines of code, I don't think that is likely to be the case!

Actually it is MORE likely to be the case - as bulb failure detection
becomes also just an extra line of code.

No.


What is the "no" in reply to??

The bimetal strip form of flasher provides the indication as
a "pleasant side-effect" of its NORMAL operation.

- The bimetal strip must be sized to carry the load of the lamps.
- The current through the strip causes it to heat and, thus deflect
(opening the circuit, allowing it to cool and the cycle to repeat).
Less current (failed light) causes it to heat more slowly and
"blink longer".
- The dashboard indicator is "just another turn signal" as far as the
wiring is concerned -- nothing "special" to convey the normal
operation of the turn signals to the user *or* the "altered"
indication.

Pretty obvious so far.

With an electronic drive, the normal "user" indication can be anything
you can create with your available "user interface"
When I said electronic I meant the electronic flasher unit that takes
the place of the bimetalic thermal flasher.

. Many cars now
synthesize a "click-clack" sound to *simulate* the sound of the old
flasher unit (opening and closing that bimetal strip). This in
addition to any visual displays, tie-in's to other warning systems
(e.g., blind spot detector, lane deviation warning, etc.)

I.e., the "normal" indication isn't a natural consequence of the
wiring -- as it was with "dash indicator lamps" wired in parallel
with the actual front/rear turn signal indicators.

While the bimetal strip inherently sensed the amount of current
flowing through it as part of its design and reacted differently
based on that current (thus changing when the load changed), an
electronic drive has to explicitly sense *sense* that current is
being drawn (to know that ANY lamps are illuminated) and sense how
*much* if you want to be able to differentiate between "one lamp
load" and "two lamp loads".

And that is a simple extra line of code in integrated systems (like
CanBus) where the lights are controlled directly by the BCM.

Then, you have to convey this information to your "user interface"
where it must be presented to the user in a manner that makes it
apparent that you are indicating a "load change" (bulb failure).
Whether that is done by altering the numeric value used to specify
the "on time" and "off time" for the indicators (visual and audible)
or an "error message" displayed in the "information console"
(which has to be prioritized with any other competing messages)
is up to the designer. Do you adopt a common means of communicating
this information regardless of make/model vehicle? Do you *augment*
that "display" for vehicles that have more "verbose" display
media? etc.

It's not "free". Someone has to decide it is important to convey this
information and then figure out how to *get* it (sensing current,
sensing an open load, etc.).

E.g., you can sense the actual current flowing through a particular
load (LED/lamp). You can quantify this to any level of precision
that you deem is important (i.e., you can conceivably tell if a
5W lamp is installed instead of a 10W -- or 6W). Or, you can just
say: "A load of at least X is present, or not"

In a degenerate case, you can simply notice the OFF voltage at
the load while introducing a high impedance bias. I.e., shunt a
tiny amount of current AROUND your "switch" into the load at
all times. When "off", an intact load will look like a low impedance
overwhelming that high impedance shunt (voltage divider where
the load is so much lower impedance than the bias that *it*
governs the "measured voltage" at the divider). OTOH, an OPEN
load looks like an infinite impedance! So, the high impedance *shunt*
governs (voltage divider where the load is now infinite impedance
and the bias governs the measured voltage).

Or, you can sense the current flowing to/from the battery (to some
degree of precision) and try to correlate that with actions that
*you* are taking ("OK, I'm turning the light on... NOW! So, that
increase in current draw is PROBABLY a reflection of the current
being consumed in the lamp. If I'm right, it should decrease
when I turn the lamp off... NOW!"). But, this can be confused
if other "uncontrolled loads" are present (e.g., someone plugs
something into a "cigarette lighter" and you don't have an
explicit way of knowing this to compensate your other observations)

[I use this approach in my home automation system to infer what
users (occupants) are doing -- just by looking at the instantaneous
demands placed on the "utilities". E.g., water flowing at a certain
rate for a certain time while a user is located in a bathroom
suggests a toilet flush, not a shower! OTOH, I have no PROOF that
the water really was flushed and not just a "hand washing" that
happened to use the same amount of water flowing at the same
rate for the same length of time as a toilet flush!]

Thermoelectrics stop flashing or slow down. Electronics speed up when
a bulb goes out. And a very large number of new vehicles still depend
on a "flasher unit"

I suspect that is an obsolescent implementation. Our current vehicle
uses LED front and incandescent rear indicators. I've seen other
vehicles with far more elaborate (Tbird style) indicators and imagine
even higher levels of integration in the future.

Note I was talking "flasher units"

I've not yet purchased a workshop manual for current vehicle so I haven't
had a chance to examine wiring diagrams, etc.

So, at the very least, it requires extra code, a flasher unit designed to
explicitly note the load change (as it is no longer relying on a
bimetal strip) *and* a path BACK to the electronic instrument cluster
that lets the vehicle KNOW that this has happened (to alter the
"A/V user display").

Not necessarily - it can use "either" a flasher unit "or" an
intelligent interface "or" both.

Much more "involved" and requiring explicit addition of that "feature"
than the "free side-effect" of a bimetallic flasher!

Per Mr Macaw:

Mass production, robotics, etc, etc we should be working less!

Seems like the Europeans are working less.

But in the USA the fruits of increased productivity have gone to the
owners and upper management, not the workers.

I think one diff is unions. Europe seems to be heavily unionized and
the USA does not.
`
Had an interesting situation a bunch of years ago: the #2 daughter and
my nephew both worked at basically the same jobs as travel agents.

The daughter in Philadelphia PA (USA) and the nephew somewhere in
Germany.

The daughter got paid for 40 hours but had to work whatever it took to
cover the calls. Busy at noon? You might get a few bites of lunch
down, you might not. If they worked through dinner into the night, the
employer didn't even send in sandwiches... they just went hungry.

And, of course, no vacation time, no retirement plan, no medical
coverage... no nothing....

Nephew's job was union. 40 hours pay for 40 hours work.... paid
overtime if he chose to accept it. Six (6!) weeks vacation, retirement
plan, full medical coverage.... You get the drift...
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:42:36 -0000, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per Mr Macaw:

Mass production, robotics, etc, etc we should be working less!

Seems like the Europeans are working less.

But in the USA the fruits of increased productivity have gone to the
owners and upper management, not the workers.

I think one diff is unions. Europe seems to be heavily unionized and
the USA does not.
`
Had an interesting situation a bunch of years ago: the #2 daughter and
my nephew both worked at basically the same jobs as travel agents.

The daughter in Philadelphia PA (USA) and the nephew somewhere in
Germany.

The daughter got paid for 40 hours but had to work whatever it took to
cover the calls. Busy at noon? You might get a few bites of lunch
down, you might not. If they worked through dinner into the night, the
employer didn't even send in sandwiches... they just went hungry.

And, of course, no vacation time, no retirement plan, no medical
coverage... no nothing....

Nephew's job was union. 40 hours pay for 40 hours work.... paid
overtime if he chose to accept it. Six (6!) weeks vacation, retirement
plan, full medical coverage.... You get the drift...

In the UK, only jobs paid by the government are like your German example. Private companies are the same as the USA.

The thing is, we shouldn't be doing 40 hours of work. Machines are doing way more than they used to, we should be working a fraction as much as we used to. What went wrong?

--
*Squawk!* Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine! [Parroty error]

On 2/13/2016 8:38 AM, wrote:
On 2/12/2016 10:06 AM, KenK wrote:
Just about pulled out in front of a car with lights out early this morning.
Not even parking lights. A few seconds earlier...

Why do these people drive with lights out? Save gas - engine runs easier
without generating electricity for lights? Seems I've seen many more of
them in the past year for some reason.

What about defective head/tail/signal lamps? I consciously notice which
lamps are lit (headlamp/running lamp/turn signal) each time I pull up
behind a vehicle with some of mine lit. Likewise, notice in the
rear view mirror if one side of the car behind me is "less red"
(from my brake lights) while we're sitting at a stop light.

Periodically will "linger" behind the car as we are exiting the
house and ask SWMBO (driving) to tap brakes, turn signals, etc.
so I can verify their operation.

How could you *not* "notice" that the light in front of your vehicle
is uneven" Or, that there is no "yellow glow" apparent alongside your
vehicle from your turn signal?

[Ans: because you're simply not noticing MOST of the things that you
SHOULD be noticing while driving!]
Virtually all vehicles will let you know if a signal is out by
changing the flash rate - either faster or no flash, depending on the
flasher used.

Perhaps in the days of thermoelectric flashers. Nowadays, when the
flasher is a few lines of code, I don't think that is likely to be the case!

Actually it is MORE likely to be the case - as bulb failure detection
becomes also just an extra line of code.

No.

What is the "no" in reply to??

That it's not just an extra line of code. The bimetal strip's elegance is
that it gave you these characteristics "for free". An alternative
implementation has to include them as "line items" in its design
specification. E.g., I can make an electronic flasher that does NOT
sense load characteristics (and convey this to the ECU) a lot easier
than I can make one that *does* -- both in terms of the hardware
AND software required.

The bimetal strip form of flasher provides the indication as
a "pleasant side-effect" of its NORMAL operation.

- The bimetal strip must be sized to carry the load of the lamps.
- The current through the strip causes it to heat and, thus deflect
(opening the circuit, allowing it to cool and the cycle to repeat).
Less current (failed light) causes it to heat more slowly and
"blink longer".
- The dashboard indicator is "just another turn signal" as far as the
wiring is concerned -- nothing "special" to convey the normal
operation of the turn signals to the user *or* the "altered"
indication.

Pretty obvious so far.

With an electronic drive, the normal "user" indication can be anything
you can create with your available "user interface"
When I said electronic I meant the electronic flasher unit that takes
the place of the bimetalic thermal flasher.

Yes. I'm not caring whether the electronic flasher is a freestanding
entity (with or without its own processor) *or* integrated in the
normal functions of the ECU.

. Many cars now
synthesize a "click-clack" sound to *simulate* the sound of the old
flasher unit (opening and closing that bimetal strip). This in
addition to any visual displays, tie-in's to other warning systems
(e.g., blind spot detector, lane deviation warning, etc.)

I.e., the "normal" indication isn't a natural consequence of the
wiring -- as it was with "dash indicator lamps" wired in parallel
with the actual front/rear turn signal indicators.

While the bimetal strip inherently sensed the amount of current
flowing through it as part of its design and reacted differently
based on that current (thus changing when the load changed), an
electronic drive has to explicitly sense *sense* that current is
being drawn (to know that ANY lamps are illuminated) and sense how
*much* if you want to be able to differentiate between "one lamp
load" and "two lamp loads".

And that is a simple extra line of code in integrated systems (like
CanBus) where the lights are controlled directly by the BCM.

No, it isn't.

if
(the_load_doesn't_appear_to_be_correct)
then
somehow_convey_this_to_the_driver

Where do you *get* the information *from*?

How do you convey it to the driver?

Remember, you've already used up your "one line of code" -- it's
written here, above!

Then, you have to convey this information to your "user interface"
where it must be presented to the user in a manner that makes it
apparent that you are indicating a "load change" (bulb failure).
Whether that is done by altering the numeric value used to specify
the "on time" and "off time" for the indicators (visual and audible)
or an "error message" displayed in the "information console"
(which has to be prioritized with any other competing messages)
is up to the designer. Do you adopt a common means of communicating
this information regardless of make/model vehicle? Do you *augment*
that "display" for vehicles that have more "verbose" display
media? etc.

It's not "free". Someone has to decide it is important to convey this
information and then figure out how to *get* it (sensing current,
sensing an open load, etc.).

E.g., you can sense the actual current flowing through a particular
load (LED/lamp). You can quantify this to any level of precision
that you deem is important (i.e., you can conceivably tell if a
5W lamp is installed instead of a 10W -- or 6W). Or, you can just
say: "A load of at least X is present, or not"

In a degenerate case, you can simply notice the OFF voltage at
the load while introducing a high impedance bias. I.e., shunt a
tiny amount of current AROUND your "switch" into the load at
all times. When "off", an intact load will look like a low impedance
overwhelming that high impedance shunt (voltage divider where
the load is so much lower impedance than the bias that *it*
governs the "measured voltage" at the divider). OTOH, an OPEN
load looks like an infinite impedance! So, the high impedance *shunt*
governs (voltage divider where the load is now infinite impedance
and the bias governs the measured voltage).

Or, you can sense the current flowing to/from the battery (to some
degree of precision) and try to correlate that with actions that
*you* are taking ("OK, I'm turning the light on... NOW! So, that
increase in current draw is PROBABLY a reflection of the current
being consumed in the lamp. If I'm right, it should decrease
when I turn the lamp off... NOW!"). But, this can be confused
if other "uncontrolled loads" are present (e.g., someone plugs
something into a "cigarette lighter" and you don't have an
explicit way of knowing this to compensate your other observations)

[I use this approach in my home automation system to infer what
users (occupants) are doing -- just by looking at the instantaneous
demands placed on the "utilities". E.g., water flowing at a certain
rate for a certain time while a user is located in a bathroom
suggests a toilet flush, not a shower! OTOH, I have no PROOF that
the water really was flushed and not just a "hand washing" that
happened to use the same amount of water flowing at the same
rate for the same length of time as a toilet flush!]

Thermoelectrics stop flashing or slow down. Electronics speed up when
a bulb goes out. And a very large number of new vehicles still depend
on a "flasher unit"

I suspect that is an obsolescent implementation. Our current vehicle
uses LED front and incandescent rear indicators. I've seen other
vehicles with far more elaborate (Tbird style) indicators and imagine
even higher levels of integration in the future.

Note I was talking "flasher units"

The flasher unit still has to take extra design steps to *sense* the
change in load current from "nominal"; then, report this (e.g., via CAN
bus).

Remember, your budget is *one* line of code. You can't cheat and hide
50 lines of code in a flasher unit! :

I've not yet purchased a workshop manual for current vehicle so I haven't
had a chance to examine wiring diagrams, etc.

So, at the very least, it requires extra code, a flasher unit designed to
explicitly note the load change (as it is no longer relying on a
bimetal strip) *and* a path BACK to the electronic instrument cluster
that lets the vehicle KNOW that this has happened (to alter the
"A/V user display").

Not necessarily - it can use "either" a flasher unit "or" an
intelligent interface "or" both.

Are you claiming that the indications on the dash are NOT processed by the
ECU? "Hardwired" turn signal indicators like in days of old?

Moving to an electronic implementation (esp one that involves a computer)
ALWAYS is more complex! The advantage, however, is that one can do other
(extra) things that are impractical, otherwise.

Imagine how you'd SPEAK a bulb failure warning message to the driver
if you were using a bimetal flasher.

Or, how you'd disable the vehicle in that event (if this was considered
essential safety equipment).

Etc.

Much more "involved" and requiring explicit addition of that "feature"
than the "free side-effect" of a bimetallic flasher!

On 2/13/2016 6:38 AM, Gene Yuss wrote:
On 02/13/2016 12:23 AM, Don Y wrote:
People zone out when driving. They get "acclimated" to a particular
set of stimuli -- then tend to ignore it.

If you want to be noticed, you have to stand out by "being different".
E.g., a headlight that flashes, etc.

This is the rationale for every tweek to the safety equipment (e.g., now
center mounted brake lights *flash* when first applied; it's not enough
that they are UP HIGH, in your LINE OF SIGHT -- cuz you've gotten used
to seeing them there and now "tune them out".

Brake lights should broadcast a wifi signal that flashes the
smartphone screens of the texting driver(s) behind you when
you apply the brakes. Or is there already an app for that?

Ha! Or, "we interrupt this call to tell you that you're about
to *ss-end the vehicle in front of you. Please hang up so we can
autodial your insurance carrier..."

[Actually, I suspect there will be pressure for phones to
report the "their" speed of travel whenever they "notice"
a sudden, instantaneous change (decrease) in speed! Perhaps
not legislated but, rather, insurance company incentives.
Given how integrated telecoms are becoming with new cars,
it wouldn't be hard for the car to "tattle" on the driver.
IIRC, our owner's manual essentially says this -- though
in an obtuse way.]

On 2/13/2016 1:47 AM, rbowman wrote:

I've had two cars with DRL's and the only thing I found annoying was the
tail lights not coming on with them. That didn't make sense to me.

The purpose of the DRL is to help see the car coming at you. If it is
going away from you it won't hit you. If foggy, lights should be turned
on anyway. 1

In the very bright sun I saw a a set of lights coming in my direction.
They were in the shade of a tree. The contrast made the car invisible,
same with the ca in front of it. It had no lights and could not be seen
until it was much closer.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 06:38:07 -0700, Gene Yuss wrote:

Brake lights should broadcast a wifi signal that flashes the
smartphone screens of the texting driver(s) behind you when
you apply the brakes. Or is there already an app for that?

How about coded beeps from the horn to warn drivers & pedestrians close by
who are NOT texting. I would not recommend this simply for applying the
brakes, and probably the beeps should be a bit muted. But it could give a
heads-up to those close at hand when:

1) The ABS is active. Usually, this means that the driver has allowed his
speed to exceed the safe limit to bring the car to stop without activating
the ABS. Possibly the car cannot stop to avoid hitting a pedestrian, and
the driver will not have time to think about sounding the horn.

2) Automatic redar-controlled braking is was actived. Usually, this means
that either the driver or a nearby pedestrian has erred in judgement.

3) The lane-keeping alarm was sounded within the car. Possibly the driver
is impaired by fatigue, texting, or intoxicants. Warn everyone nearby.

On 2/13/2016 10:42 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

`
Had an interesting situation a bunch of years ago: the #2 daughter and
my nephew both worked at basically the same jobs as travel agents.

The daughter in Philadelphia PA (USA) and the nephew somewhere in
Germany.

The daughter got paid for 40 hours but had to work whatever it took to
cover the calls. Busy at noon? You might get a few bites of lunch
down, you might not. If they worked through dinner into the night, the
employer didn't even send in sandwiches... they just went hungry.

And, of course, no vacation time, no retirement plan, no medical
coverage... no nothing....

Nephew's job was union. 40 hours pay for 40 hours work.... paid
overtime if he chose to accept it. Six (6!) weeks vacation, retirement
plan, full medical coverage.... You get the drift...



Europe definitely has better benefits. What was the wage scale though?
Could they both have the same style of living?

On 2/13/2016 1:01 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/12/2016 09:24 PM, wrote:
The edge does NOT go away. Wheather a bike or a car, SOMETHING is
occupying the road ahead coming your direction. Hitting a car head on
isn't going to do any less damage to you than hitting a bike - - -

Considering I'm the guy on the bike, I'd prefer some moron didn't hit me
head on, or what is much more common, blissfully make a left hand turn
in front of me because they 'didn't see' me. Car drivers only see other
cars. Anything smaller than a minivan is off their radar completely.
They *might* notice a headlight, but if it's just one little headlight
in a stream of DRL's, they're going to ignore it.

A lady in a mini-van looked straight at a motor cyclist coming towards
her in the opposite lane and still turned left in front of him. The guy
on the motor cycle ended up laying the motor cycle down on it's side and
he got injured. She did stop at that point and took responsibility for
her actions.

--
Maggie

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:41:44 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/12/2016 6:30 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Those stupid things should be banned, they're a distraction. Lights are
to inform you of.... someone making a turn, an ambulance, etc, etc. If
everybody has lights, you no longer notice things you should, you don't
see unlit things like pedestrians, etc. In countries like Austria where
they did proper surveys, they found that they INCREASE accidents by 12%.

Austria is not mentioned, but overall, accidents are reduced.

I smell bull****. Just like global warming.

Look at this part of what you wrote below:

These studies concluded that two years after enactment of the law, DRLs reduced daytime
multiple-vehicle crashes by 6 to 7 percent, and reduced motor-vehicle-to-pedalcyclist crashes by
4 percent. However, the second study also showed that DRLs significantly increased motor
vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes by 16 percent.

Which is what I was saying, light up one thing and you see the other less. What next? DRLs compulsory on pedestrians?

The simple fact remains that the human eye doesn't just see direct light, it sees REFLECTED light, in fact that's what it's designed to see. All objects reflect light during daylight hours. Adding light sources on them is beyond stupid.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811029.pdf

A majority of the European studies consistently found that a DRL law was
associated with a
reduction in crashes. The effects varied from 4 percent to 27 percent
depending on crash type,
crash severity, season, roadway conditions, and light conditions. The
DRL effects found in the
U.S. studies were less consistent and more uncertain
European Studies
A 1976 study in Finland found that DRLs would reduce daytime
multi-vehicle crashes and
pedestrian/pedalcyclist crashes on rural roads by 21 percent.12 A 1981
study in Sweden based on
two years pre-law and two years post-law data concluded that the DRL law
would reduce
daytime crashes by 11 percent, pedestrian/cyclist crashes by 17 percent,
and bicycle/moped
crashes by 21 percent.13 In Norway, a 1993 study by Elvik14
found that DRLs would reduce
daytime multi-vehicle crashes by 15 percent in the summer. However, the
same study found that
DRLs had no effects on multi-vehicle crashes in the winter. Also, there
was no effect on crashes
involving pedestrians or motorcyclists. None of the results were
statistically significant.
Two studies in 1993 and 1995 evaluating Denmark's 1990 DRL law showed
consistent results.
These studies concluded that two years after enactment of the law, DRLs
reduced daytime
multiple-vehicle crashes by 6 to 7 percent, and reduced
motor-vehicle-to-pedalcyclist crashes by
4 percent. However, the second study also showed that DRLs significantly
increased motor
vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes by 16 percent.15 16

Canadian Studies
Sparks 1993 study20
which examined Canadian government fleet data found that DRLs reduced
twilight, two-vehicle crashes by 15 percent. The effect was
statistically significant. Two reports
produced by Transport Canada also showed positive DRL effects. Of these,
Arora et al.21
concluded in 1994 that DRLs significantly reduced daytime two-vehicle
opposite direction

U.S. Studies
In contrast, DRL effects from U.S. studies were less consistent. DRLs
are not required in the
United States, thus all studies in the United States were
vehicle-fleet-based analyses. In 2000,
NHTSA conducted a preliminary study23
to evaluate the effects of DRLs. The estimated effects
ranged from -8 to 2 percent for fatal two-vehicle opposite-direction
crashes, 5 to 7 percent for
non-fatal crashes, and 28-29 percent for single-vehicle-to-pedestrian
crashes. The range of
effects primarily resulted from two different statistics. In 2005, the
agency reexamined the
effectiveness of DRLs using the same statistical techniques as in the
2000 report but used a
different set of crash data.24
Conclusions from this updated study were similar to those in the
earlier study: -7.9 to 5 percent for daytime two-vehicle opposite and
angle crashes, 3.8 to 12
percent for single-vehicle-to-pedestrian/cyclist crashes, and 23 to 26
percent for single-vehicleto-motorcycle
crashes.



--
What does a Polish woman do after she sucks a cock?
Spits out the feathers.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:42:51 -0000, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

On 02/12/2016 06:28 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Just about pulled out in front of a car with lights out early this
morning.
Not even parking lights. A few seconds earlier...

Why do these people drive with lights out? Save gas - engine runs easier
without generating electricity for lights? Seems I've seen many more of
them in the past year for some reason.

Breeding more of them in your area too?

Sorry to bother you all. Had to vent somewhere.

If you can't see an unlit car, you need to either see an optician or
stop driving immediately. When I see someone like that I just flash to
remind them to put them on.

I am reminded of some drivers in the UK 60 years ago (when I don't think
the law yet prescribed *what* lights were to be used after "lighting up
time") who insisted on driving on unlit roads with only parking lights
on and said, "If you can't see with parking lights on, you shouldn't be
driving."

That would be me. I use sidelights in a streetlit area at night. And do you know what? Never been pulled over for it. Dipped lights are for you to see. You do not need a bright light to see the light. You use bright lights to illuminate other objects.

--
If trains stop at train stations, what happens at workstations?

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 02:35:24 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/12/2016 7:25 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:20:44 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/12/2016 6:28 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

If you can't see an unlit car, you need to either see an optician or
stop driving immediately. When I see someone like that I just flash to
remind them to put them on.

How would you know you have not seen an unlit car?

Because I would have hit it.

Or a serious answer, they're as easy to see as pedestrians, which are
almost always unlit.

Or stating the obvious, cars reflect light, like any object does, so the
streetlamps or your own lights make it visible.

But will you see it in time?

Why are you equating brightness with time?

--
If you refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor, you may be a Muslim.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:41:45 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/12/2016 05:20 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/12/2016 6:28 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


If you can't see an unlit car, you need to either see an optician or
stop driving immediately. When I see someone like that I just flash to
remind them to put them on.


How would you know you have not seen an unlit car?

When it eliminates you from the gene pool?

I've got eyes. If you don't, get someone else to drive for you.

--
Cold showers/baths/swimming:
1) Cure Hayfever. Apparently this is due to the strengthening effect on the mucous membranes.
2) Help circulation by bringing blood to capilliaries and increasing circulation through the body.
3) Improve the internal furnace, be warmer when it's cold.
4) Make losing weight easier - generating heat burns loads of calories.
5) Detoxify, by contracting muscles to eliminate toxins - skin and hair also improves.
6) Save energy.
7) Increase libido (contrary to the old wives' tale).

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:53:31 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:28:20 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:06:25 -0000, KenK wrote:


Just about pulled out in front of a car with lights out early this morning.
Not even parking lights. A few seconds earlier...

Why do these people drive with lights out? Save gas - engine runs easier
without generating electricity for lights? Seems I've seen many more of
them in the past year for some reason.

Breeding more of them in your area too?

Sorry to bother you all. Had to vent somewhere.

If you can't see an unlit car, you need to either see an optician or stop driving immediately. When I see someone like that I just flash to remind them to put them on.
Driving down an unlit road in fog or rain or blowing snow you don't
see them untill you are virtually on top of them. (it can be bad
enough when they are lit - particularly if the lights are covered in
dirt or snow)

Speak for yourself. How do you manage when you go out for a walk, do you need to use a torch?

--
Cold showers/baths/swimming:
1) Cure Hayfever. Apparently this is due to the strengthening effect on the mucous membranes.
2) Help circulation by bringing blood to capilliaries and increasing circulation through the body.
3) Improve the internal furnace, be warmer when it's cold.
4) Make losing weight easier - generating heat burns loads of calories.
5) Detoxify, by contracting muscles to eliminate toxins - skin and hair also improves.
6) Save energy.
7) Increase libido (contrary to the old wives' tale).

On 2/13/2016 8:45 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
Any time wipers are on? hmmm About half the people on the road here
MIGHT turn on their lights if it's raining. I usually do it, though.

On my first trip to Germany I was at the airport waiting for my ride and
noticed that the cars all had windshield wipers on their headlights.

WTF ? Thunk I.

A half hour later, I found myself in the passenger seat of a car doing
110 MPH in the rain at night....

Question answered....


I wonder how much good they were going 110 mph? I'd be more worried
about traction and hydroplaning! ack!

--
Maggie

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:55:24 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:28:37 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:14:13 -0000, philo wrote:

On 02/12/2016 11:06 AM, KenK wrote:
Just about pulled out in front of a car with lights out early this morning.
Not even parking lights. A few seconds earlier...

Why do these people drive with lights out? Save gas - engine runs easier
without generating electricity for lights? Seems I've seen many more of
them in the past year for some reason.

Breeding more of them in your area too?

Sorry to bother you all. Had to vent somewhere.





My car is set to automatic and the lights go on and off as needed.

That said, if it's very dark, it's odd they don't notice that they can't
see anything

Not everybody has brand new fancy cars.
As I just said in another message - mine is 20 years old (and
believe it or not MOST of the lamps are still original - along with
the rear brakes, exhaust, alternator, starter, ball joints and
steering parts, etc at 340,000+ Km)

I guess you don't drive with your lights on all the time then?

--
The way to a man's heart is through the left ventricle.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:57:13 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:30:08 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:09 -0000, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 02/12/2016 11:06 AM, KenK wrote:
Just about pulled out in front of a car with lights out early this morning.
Not even parking lights. A few seconds earlier...

Why do these people drive with lights out? Save gas - engine runs easier
without generating electricity for lights? Seems I've seen many more of
them in the past year for some reason.

Breeding more of them in your area too?

Sorry to bother you all. Had to vent somewhere.

My car is set to automatic and the lights go on and off as needed.

That said, if it's very dark, it's odd they don't notice that they can't
see anything

This can't be much of a problem anymore, can it? The vast majority of
cars on the road now have daytime lights on, ie if the car is running
the lights are on. Not sure if it's a law though.
Probably should be though.

Those stupid things should be banned, they're a distraction. Lights are to inform you of.... someone making a turn, an ambulance, etc, etc. If everybody has lights, you no longer notice things you should, you don't see unlit things like pedestrians, etc. In countries like Austria where they did proper surveys, they found that they INCREASE accidents by 12%.
Mr Parrott. you are crazy.
Daylighting makes ALL vehicles more visible.. If other cars on the
road are a distraction to you, you should quit driving and stay aff
the road.

Says the person who cannot see an object which doesn't have bulbs all over it.

I'm a photographer, I know all about contrast and apertures, so shut up until you have a clue please.

--
In a recent survey 40% found they didn't have time to answer the
question, 25% hung up the phone when the question was being
asked, 20% couldn't speak English, and 15% gave answers that
weren't asked.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:57:53 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:30:39 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:30:29 -0000, philo wrote:

On 02/12/2016 11:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:



My car is set to automatic and the lights go on and off as needed.

That said, if it's very dark, it's odd they don't notice that they can't
see anything

This can't be much of a problem anymore, can it? The vast majority of
cars on the road now have daytime lights on, ie if the car is running
the lights are on. Not sure if it's a law though.
Probably should be though.

Yes, even with my lights in the "off" position there are still "running
lights". I don't know if there is anyway to turn them off completely

Disconnect the stupid things. If the car moans about it, connect a dummy load under the hood where it can't distract other road users.
Id10t

Says the person using mobile phone speak.

--
How many potheads does it take to change a light bulb?
Two. One to hold the bulb against the socket, and the other to smoke up until the room starts spinning.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 04:02:47 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:33:49 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:48:05 -0000, Mr. Emann wrote:

On 2/12/2016 11:30 AM, philo wrote:

Yes, even with my lights in the "off" position there are still "running
lights". I don't know if there is anyway to turn them off completely

The daylight running lights on my truck will turn off when the emergency
brake is set. If I want to turn them off I just push the emergency brake
pedal just far enough to turn off the lights but not enough to engage
the brakes.

So people who use the emergency/hand/parking brake at junctions will make their lights go on and off, that's really stupid.
Apparently not as stupid as you.

Says the person who doesn't know the difference between her name and her email address.

--
How many potheads does it take to change a light bulb?
Two. One to hold the bulb against the socket, and the other to smoke up until the room starts spinning.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:58:47 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:31:49 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:38:53 -0000, Tony Hwang wrote:

philo wrote:
On 02/12/2016 11:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:



My car is set to automatic and the lights go on and off as needed.

That said, if it's very dark, it's odd they don't notice that they can't
see anything

This can't be much of a problem anymore, can it? The vast majority of
cars on the road now have daytime lights on, ie if the car is running
the lights are on. Not sure if it's a law though.
Probably should be though.




Yes, even with my lights in the "off" position there are still "running
lights". I don't know if there is anyway to turn them off completely

What about tail lights? There are still many older cars/trucks on the
road yet.

An even stupider thing about daytime running lights is they don't turn the tail lights on, which means there are now loads of people driving around at night with only the front lights on, not realising they are unlit at the back. If you have no front lights on in the day, when it gets dark you notice.
You don't have lights on your speedo and other guages either, dummy.

That would be because I can see them without lights all over them, just like I can see other cars without lights all over them.

Again, why do you want the front of cars lit up but not the back?

--
How do shepherds practice safe sex?
They paint an X on the back of the ones that kick!

On 02/13/2016 12:26 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Just about pulled out in front of a car with lights out early this
morning.
Not even parking lights. A few seconds earlier...

Why do these people drive with lights out? Save gas - engine runs
easier
without generating electricity for lights? Seems I've seen many more of
them in the past year for some reason.

Breeding more of them in your area too?

Sorry to bother you all. Had to vent somewhere.

If you can't see an unlit car, you need to either see an optician or
stop driving immediately. When I see someone like that I just flash to
remind them to put them on.

I am reminded of some drivers in the UK 60 years ago (when I don't think
the law yet prescribed *what* lights were to be used after "lighting up
time") who insisted on driving on unlit roads with only parking lights
on and said, "If you can't see with parking lights on, you shouldn't be
driving."

That would be me. I use sidelights in a streetlit area at night. And
do you know what? Never been pulled over for it. Dipped lights are for
you to see. You do not need a bright light to see the light. You use
bright lights to illuminate other objects.

You are talking about "a streetlit area." I was taking about UNlit areas.

Perce

Don Y wrote:
On 2/13/2016 8:38 AM, wrote:
On 2/12/2016 10:06 AM, KenK wrote:
Just about pulled out in front of a car with lights out early
this morning.
Not even parking lights. A few seconds earlier...

Why do these people drive with lights out? Save gas - engine
runs easier
without generating electricity for lights? Seems I've seen many
more of
them in the past year for some reason.

What about defective head/tail/signal lamps? I consciously
notice which
lamps are lit (headlamp/running lamp/turn signal) each time I
pull up
behind a vehicle with some of mine lit. Likewise, notice in the
rear view mirror if one side of the car behind me is "less red"
(from my brake lights) while we're sitting at a stop light.

Periodically will "linger" behind the car as we are exiting the
house and ask SWMBO (driving) to tap brakes, turn signals, etc.
so I can verify their operation.

How could you *not* "notice" that the light in front of your vehicle
is uneven" Or, that there is no "yellow glow" apparent alongside
your
vehicle from your turn signal?

[Ans: because you're simply not noticing MOST of the things that
you
SHOULD be noticing while driving!]
Virtually all vehicles will let you know if a signal is out by
changing the flash rate - either faster or no flash, depending on the
flasher used.

Perhaps in the days of thermoelectric flashers. Nowadays, when the
flasher is a few lines of code, I don't think that is likely to be
the case!

Actually it is MORE likely to be the case - as bulb failure detection
becomes also just an extra line of code.

No.

What is the "no" in reply to??

That it's not just an extra line of code. The bimetal strip's elegance is
that it gave you these characteristics "for free". An alternative
implementation has to include them as "line items" in its design
specification. E.g., I can make an electronic flasher that does NOT
sense load characteristics (and convey this to the ECU) a lot easier
than I can make one that *does* -- both in terms of the hardware
AND software required.

The bimetal strip form of flasher provides the indication as
a "pleasant side-effect" of its NORMAL operation.

- The bimetal strip must be sized to carry the load of the lamps.
- The current through the strip causes it to heat and, thus deflect
(opening the circuit, allowing it to cool and the cycle to repeat).
Less current (failed light) causes it to heat more slowly and
"blink longer".
- The dashboard indicator is "just another turn signal" as far as the
wiring is concerned -- nothing "special" to convey the normal
operation of the turn signals to the user *or* the "altered"
indication.

Pretty obvious so far.

With an electronic drive, the normal "user" indication can be anything
you can create with your available "user interface"
When I said electronic I meant the electronic flasher unit that takes
the place of the bimetalic thermal flasher.

Yes. I'm not caring whether the electronic flasher is a freestanding
entity (with or without its own processor) *or* integrated in the
normal functions of the ECU.

. Many cars now
synthesize a "click-clack" sound to *simulate* the sound of the old
flasher unit (opening and closing that bimetal strip). This in
addition to any visual displays, tie-in's to other warning systems
(e.g., blind spot detector, lane deviation warning, etc.)

I.e., the "normal" indication isn't a natural consequence of the
wiring -- as it was with "dash indicator lamps" wired in parallel
with the actual front/rear turn signal indicators.

While the bimetal strip inherently sensed the amount of current
flowing through it as part of its design and reacted differently
based on that current (thus changing when the load changed), an
electronic drive has to explicitly sense *sense* that current is
being drawn (to know that ANY lamps are illuminated) and sense how
*much* if you want to be able to differentiate between "one lamp
load" and "two lamp loads".

And that is a simple extra line of code in integrated systems (like
CanBus) where the lights are controlled directly by the BCM.

No, it isn't.

if
(the_load_doesn't_appear_to_be_correct)
then
somehow_convey_this_to_the_driver

Where do you *get* the information *from*?

How do you convey it to the driver?

Remember, you've already used up your "one line of code" -- it's
written here, above!

Then, you have to convey this information to your "user interface"
where it must be presented to the user in a manner that makes it
apparent that you are indicating a "load change" (bulb failure).
Whether that is done by altering the numeric value used to specify
the "on time" and "off time" for the indicators (visual and audible)
or an "error message" displayed in the "information console"
(which has to be prioritized with any other competing messages)
is up to the designer. Do you adopt a common means of communicating
this information regardless of make/model vehicle? Do you *augment*
that "display" for vehicles that have more "verbose" display
media? etc.

It's not "free". Someone has to decide it is important to convey this
information and then figure out how to *get* it (sensing current,
sensing an open load, etc.).

E.g., you can sense the actual current flowing through a particular
load (LED/lamp). You can quantify this to any level of precision
that you deem is important (i.e., you can conceivably tell if a
5W lamp is installed instead of a 10W -- or 6W). Or, you can just
say: "A load of at least X is present, or not"

In a degenerate case, you can simply notice the OFF voltage at
the load while introducing a high impedance bias. I.e., shunt a
tiny amount of current AROUND your "switch" into the load at
all times. When "off", an intact load will look like a low impedance
overwhelming that high impedance shunt (voltage divider where
the load is so much lower impedance than the bias that *it*
governs the "measured voltage" at the divider). OTOH, an OPEN
load looks like an infinite impedance! So, the high impedance *shunt*
governs (voltage divider where the load is now infinite impedance
and the bias governs the measured voltage).

Or, you can sense the current flowing to/from the battery (to some
degree of precision) and try to correlate that with actions that
*you* are taking ("OK, I'm turning the light on... NOW! So, that
increase in current draw is PROBABLY a reflection of the current
being consumed in the lamp. If I'm right, it should decrease
when I turn the lamp off... NOW!"). But, this can be confused
if other "uncontrolled loads" are present (e.g., someone plugs
something into a "cigarette lighter" and you don't have an
explicit way of knowing this to compensate your other observations)

[I use this approach in my home automation system to infer what
users (occupants) are doing -- just by looking at the instantaneous
demands placed on the "utilities". E.g., water flowing at a certain
rate for a certain time while a user is located in a bathroom
suggests a toilet flush, not a shower! OTOH, I have no PROOF that
the water really was flushed and not just a "hand washing" that
happened to use the same amount of water flowing at the same
rate for the same length of time as a toilet flush!]

Thermoelectrics stop flashing or slow down. Electronics speed up when
a bulb goes out. And a very large number of new vehicles still depend
on a "flasher unit"

I suspect that is an obsolescent implementation. Our current vehicle
uses LED front and incandescent rear indicators. I've seen other
vehicles with far more elaborate (Tbird style) indicators and imagine
even higher levels of integration in the future.

Note I was talking "flasher units"

The flasher unit still has to take extra design steps to *sense* the
change in load current from "nominal"; then, report this (e.g., via CAN
bus).

Remember, your budget is *one* line of code. You can't cheat and hide
50 lines of code in a flasher unit! :

I've not yet purchased a workshop manual for current vehicle so I
haven't
had a chance to examine wiring diagrams, etc.

So, at the very least, it requires extra code, a flasher unit
designed to
explicitly note the load change (as it is no longer relying on a
bimetal strip) *and* a path BACK to the electronic instrument cluster
that lets the vehicle KNOW that this has happened (to alter the
"A/V user display").

Not necessarily - it can use "either" a flasher unit "or" an
intelligent interface "or" both.

Are you claiming that the indications on the dash are NOT processed by the
ECU? "Hardwired" turn signal indicators like in days of old?

Moving to an electronic implementation (esp one that involves a computer)
ALWAYS is more complex! The advantage, however, is that one can do other
(extra) things that are impractical, otherwise.

Imagine how you'd SPEAK a bulb failure warning message to the driver
if you were using a bimetal flasher.

If a bulb is out, the flashing rate changes telling driver to check them.


Or, how you'd disable the vehicle in that event (if this was considered
essential safety equipment).

Etc.

Much more "involved" and requiring explicit addition of that "feature"
than the "free side-effect" of a bimetallic flasher!

Per Mr Macaw:
we should be working a fraction as much as we used to. What went wrong?

Balance of Power: workers are not standing up for themselves, so the
additional profits float up to the top.

--
Pete Cresswell

Don Y wrote:
On 2/13/2016 6:38 AM, Gene Yuss wrote:
On 02/13/2016 12:23 AM, Don Y wrote:
People zone out when driving. They get "acclimated" to a particular
set of stimuli -- then tend to ignore it.

If you want to be noticed, you have to stand out by "being different".
E.g., a headlight that flashes, etc.

This is the rationale for every tweek to the safety equipment (e.g., now
center mounted brake lights *flash* when first applied; it's not enough
that they are UP HIGH, in your LINE OF SIGHT -- cuz you've gotten used
to seeing them there and now "tune them out".

Brake lights should broadcast a wifi signal that flashes the
smartphone screens of the texting driver(s) behind you when
you apply the brakes. Or is there already an app for that?

Ha! Or, "we interrupt this call to tell you that you're about
to *ss-end the vehicle in front of you. Please hang up so we can
autodial your insurance carrier..."

[Actually, I suspect there will be pressure for phones to
report the "their" speed of travel whenever they "notice"
a sudden, instantaneous change (decrease) in speed! Perhaps
not legislated but, rather, insurance company incentives.
Given how integrated telecoms are becoming with new cars,
it wouldn't be hard for the car to "tattle" on the driver.
IIRC, our owner's manual essentially says this -- though
in an obtuse way.]

That is why when you pick up the new car, you have to spend
some time with delivery specialist(usually young kids) asking
any questions about this new gadgets. Not everything is in the
manual.

Per Ed Pawlowski:

Europe definitely has better benefits. What was the wage scale though?
Could they both have the same style of living?

In my experience, the German standard for a similar job is much higher.

But this is a subjective judgment.

Last time I priced them (a loooooong time ago) a pair of Nikes that
cost, say, $50 USD were more like $150 in Germany.... and people there
drive much, much smaller automobiles.....

OTOH, that has to be weighed against 6 weeks of vacation, overtime pay
for working overtime, retirement at full pay, medical coverage,
vastly-greater literacy, and so-forth.

"You pays your money and you takes your choice".

I tell my German relatives that I'd emigrate to Germany in a heartbeat
except for one problem: Too Many Germans..... i.e. It's a foreign
culture and German is a infamously-difficult language to learn.

When we would walk around in towns of any size (Mainz, for instance) it
was obvious when we walked into a neighborhood populated mainly by
non-Germans: dog poop on the sidewalks, trash, graffiti, dirt in
general....

When I was taking Latin in high school, we had to read Caesar's Gallic
Wars. I remember one part where somebody was talking about the English
and the Germans.

The gist was something to the effect of "Well, the English paint
themselves blue and throw spears at us; but we're going to civilize
them. The Germans, on the other hand, are far more civilized and
developed; but we are never going to get on with them because they're
just so *different*".
--
Pete Cresswell

On 2/13/2016 11:06 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Don Y wrote:
On 2/13/2016 6:38 AM, Gene Yuss wrote:
On 02/13/2016 12:23 AM, Don Y wrote:
People zone out when driving. They get "acclimated" to a particular
set of stimuli -- then tend to ignore it.

If you want to be noticed, you have to stand out by "being different".
E.g., a headlight that flashes, etc.

This is the rationale for every tweek to the safety equipment (e.g., now
center mounted brake lights *flash* when first applied; it's not enough
that they are UP HIGH, in your LINE OF SIGHT -- cuz you've gotten used
to seeing them there and now "tune them out".

Brake lights should broadcast a wifi signal that flashes the
smartphone screens of the texting driver(s) behind you when
you apply the brakes. Or is there already an app for that?

Ha! Or, "we interrupt this call to tell you that you're about
to *ss-end the vehicle in front of you. Please hang up so we can
autodial your insurance carrier..."

[Actually, I suspect there will be pressure for phones to
report the "their" speed of travel whenever they "notice"
a sudden, instantaneous change (decrease) in speed! Perhaps
not legislated but, rather, insurance company incentives.
Given how integrated telecoms are becoming with new cars,
it wouldn't be hard for the car to "tattle" on the driver.
IIRC, our owner's manual essentially says this -- though
in an obtuse way.]

That is why when you pick up the new car, you have to spend
some time with delivery specialist(usually young kids) asking
any questions about this new gadgets. Not everything is in the
manual.

What's in the manual is a legal disclaimer. I'd be willing to bet
that anyone at the dealer would be incapable of explaining the *real*
impact of this disclosu namely, that someone could subpoena the
logs from your vehicle to determine if you were at fault in an
accident, to discover who you have talked with (a la Patriot Act)
*through* the vehicle's comms, etc.

Sort of like google claiming that their tracking of your searches is
to enable them to "provide a better search experience" (where "better"
means "more profitable for its advertisers"!)

On 2/13/2016 11:19 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ed Pawlowski:

Europe definitely has better benefits. What was the wage scale though?
Could they both have the same style of living?

In my experience, the German standard for a similar job is much higher.

But this is a subjective judgment.

Last time I priced them (a loooooong time ago) a pair of Nikes that
cost, say, $50 USD were more like $150 in Germany.... and people there
drive much, much smaller automobiles.....

OTOH, that has to be weighed against 6 weeks of vacation, overtime pay
for working overtime, retirement at full pay, medical coverage,
vastly-greater literacy, and so-forth.

Europe has a different idea of the role of gummit in society.
The US believes society exists so folks can exploit one and other;
the europeans seem to think it exists so folks can *help* one and other.

Huge difference.

"You pays your money and you takes your choice".

I tell my German relatives that I'd emigrate to Germany in a heartbeat
except for one problem: Too Many Germans..... i.e. It's a foreign
culture and German is a infamously-difficult language to learn.

Nonsense! You just fill your mouth with olive-sized jagged stones
and try to pronounce "Petter Piper Picked a Peck of Pickled Peppers"
*without* letting any of them fall out of your mouth! ;-)

When we would walk around in towns of any size (Mainz, for instance) it
was obvious when we walked into a neighborhood populated mainly by
non-Germans: dog poop on the sidewalks, trash, graffiti, dirt in
general....

Germans, IME, tend to be highly conformist. But, that's from my
observations of "german immigrants" and first descendants thereof.

When I was taking Latin in high school, we had to read Caesar's Gallic
Wars. I remember one part where somebody was talking about the English
and the Germans.

The gist was something to the effect of "Well, the English paint
themselves blue and throw spears at us; but we're going to civilize
them. The Germans, on the other hand, are far more civilized and
developed; but we are never going to get on with them because they're
just so *different*".

On 2/13/2016 12:27 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 02:35:24 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/12/2016 7:25 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:20:44 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/12/2016 6:28 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

If you can't see an unlit car, you need to either see an optician or
stop driving immediately. When I see someone like that I just
flash to
remind them to put them on.

How would you know you have not seen an unlit car?

Because I would have hit it.

Or a serious answer, they're as easy to see as pedestrians, which are
almost always unlit.

Or stating the obvious, cars reflect light, like any object does, so the
streetlamps or your own lights make it visible.

But will you see it in time?

Why are you equating brightness with time?


If you don't have time to stop or take evasive action you can hit it.
You knew that but just wanted to show off.

On 2/13/2016 12:28 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/13/2016 8:45 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
Any time wipers are on? hmmm About half the people on the road here
MIGHT turn on their lights if it's raining. I usually do it, though.

On my first trip to Germany I was at the airport waiting for my ride and
noticed that the cars all had windshield wipers on their headlights.

WTF ? Thunk I.

A half hour later, I found myself in the passenger seat of a car doing
110 MPH in the rain at night....

Question answered....


I wonder how much good they were going 110 mph? I'd be more worried
about traction and hydroplaning! ack!


Or he was going 110 KPH or 68 MPH. When you look as the speedometer in
Germany you usually have to translate.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:44:00 -0000, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

On 02/13/2016 12:26 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Just about pulled out in front of a car with lights out early this
morning.
Not even parking lights. A few seconds earlier...

Why do these people drive with lights out? Save gas - engine runs
easier
without generating electricity for lights? Seems I've seen many more of
them in the past year for some reason.

Breeding more of them in your area too?

Sorry to bother you all. Had to vent somewhere.

If you can't see an unlit car, you need to either see an optician or
stop driving immediately. When I see someone like that I just flash to
remind them to put them on.

I am reminded of some drivers in the UK 60 years ago (when I don't think
the law yet prescribed *what* lights were to be used after "lighting up
time") who insisted on driving on unlit roads with only parking lights
on and said, "If you can't see with parking lights on, you shouldn't be
driving."

That would be me. I use sidelights in a streetlit area at night. And
do you know what? Never been pulled over for it. Dipped lights are for
you to see. You do not need a bright light to see the light. You use
bright lights to illuminate other objects.

You are talking about "a streetlit area." I was taking about UNlit areas.

I didn't notice that. Anyway, what I said still stands - the dipped lights are for them to see with. Sidelights are enough for you to see them.

--
Women are like small children. You bring a new one home and the ones already there resent it.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 18:05:47 -0000, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per Mr Macaw:
we should be working a fraction as much as we used to. What went wrong?

Balance of Power: workers are not standing up for themselves, so the
additional profits float up to the top.

Nah, it's always ben like that. I think it's to do with standard of living.

--
An optimist thinks this is the best possible world.
A pessimist fears this is true.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 18:43:34 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/13/2016 12:27 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 02:35:24 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/12/2016 7:25 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:20:44 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/12/2016 6:28 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

If you can't see an unlit car, you need to either see an optician or
stop driving immediately. When I see someone like that I just
flash to
remind them to put them on.

How would you know you have not seen an unlit car?

Because I would have hit it.

Or a serious answer, they're as easy to see as pedestrians, which are
almost always unlit.

Or stating the obvious, cars reflect light, like any object does, so the
streetlamps or your own lights make it visible.

But will you see it in time?

Why are you equating brightness with time?

If you don't have time to stop or take evasive action you can hit it.
You knew that but just wanted to show off.

This has nothing to do with how brightly lit an object is.

--
An optimist thinks this is the best possible world.
A pessimist fears this is true.

On 02/12/2016 10:20 PM, Don Y wrote:

[snip]

AFAICT, most pedestrian accidents aren't the fault of an "impaired"
pedestrian -- unless you consider lack of common sense to be an impairment!


iPhone addiction.

--
"Evolution is both fact and theory. Creationism is neither."

On 02/12/2016 10:28 PM, wrote:

[snip]

150 meters, by the way, is well over 150 feet. ( like about 165)


A meter is about 39 inches (more than 3 feet). 150 meters is about 488 feet.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"We are convinced the masses of evidence render the application of the
concept of evolution to man and the other primates beyond serious
dispute."[Pontifical Academy of Sciences]