On 2/13/2016 12:30 PM, Sam E wrote:
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.

In some cases, perhaps. But I think the overwhelming reason is laziness:
"Aw, c'mon... do I REALLY have to walk all the way down THERE (to get the
protections that taxpayers have paid for on behalf of pedestrian traffic)?"

On 2/13/2016 12:51 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.

ahh Well Pete said it was MPH, so KPH would make a big difference. Thanks.

--
Maggie

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 05:57:35 -0500, Micky
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:40:58 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/12/2016 01:22 PM, wrote:
My 20 year old pickup had DRL

Yes, but you're in Canada. I don't know when DRL's became mandatory in
Canada but they are not in the US. Some manufacturers installed them,
some did not. My 2007 Toyota had them; my 2011 does not. Go figure.

OT but my 2000 Solara has a driver's window that goes all the way down
with one push, but requires holding the button to go up.

My friend's '99 Rav4 had a button that went up or down with one push,
a year earlier, cheaper car, but better switch, IMO.


Since they are not illegal in the US I'm surprised they are not
installed across the board.
One touch "up" was "outlawed" because it was too easy for a kid to
get caught in a window by bumping the switch.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 04:12:03 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 11:12:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:38:29 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 7:44:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/12/2016 6:31 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.


On;y a compete idiot woult not notice the instrument panel is dark too.

That depends on the vehicle. I just checked the 2 cars that are home.

The 03 Element's dash is dark until the lights are turned on.

The 06 Ody's dash is lit whenever the car is running and actually gets dimmer
when the headlights are turned on.

The Oddity has an electronic display - right??

If you mean like a blank screen until the car is started, no. All gauges and indicators
are always visible. The gauges are backlit when the ignition is on and the indicators
light up.

Not a blank screen, but no physical needles ? - bar graph or "lit"
indicators?

http://media.caranddriver.com/images...s-1280x782.jpg


I'm not sure about the 07 Civic or the 05 Taurus. They're both away from home
getting their Master's degrees at this time. :-)


DRL do not really give you much to see by. The purpose it to be seen
under certain circumstances.

On 2/13/2016 12:42 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
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.

39.37, IIRC. Multiply by 3 and add ~10% of itself:

150*3=450
10%*450=45
450+45=495ft

check:
150*39.37/12=492.125

i.e., less than 1% error

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:25:03 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 04:01:43 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:32:46 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:52:32 -0000, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

On 02/12/2016 04:27 PM, 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

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


My car is more than ten years old, but yes, there are cars out there
much older. At one time cars did not last very long
My 20 year old pickup had DRL

I see you have .ca email address. AFAIK, DRLs were required in Canada
long ago, but on our Canadian-built '02 Chrysler 300M DRLs weren't even
a factory-fitted option; I bought the module and plugged it in, and they
work.

They were not an option in "export" vehicles in 02 because some idiot
states still had laws on the books making them illegal, apparently.

At least on an Canadian built US market vehicle all you need to do is
plug in a module to make them work and make them legal for importation
into canada.
Many US built "domestic market" vehicles require a real bodge job to
get DRLs working to make them legal to import into Canada (along with
things like having to replace the inferior-spec bumpers etc).It used
to be quite a few US vehicles could not be imported into canada at all
because they could not be brought up to Canadian spec, but most of
them are now over 15 years old and allowed in. There are still some
that cannot be brought in - like 2005 2wd Jimmy/Blazer, any Lotus
other than 01-04 esprit,, Mercedes CLK63 Black Series or S500 Guard
Package, Tesla Model S, some Masaratti and McLaren, and quite a few
Saleen, Shelby and Roush Mustangs (if converted after sale - not
purchased from Ford as finished vehicles) and van conversions not done
by a recognized list of converters.

We just bought a 2008 Pontiac Vibe (re-badged Toyota Matrix) from a
Canadian friend who was returning to Canada and didn't want to have to
mess with beefing it up to Canadian standards on top of having to pay
import duty.

Can't he just drive it registered to the US? Like if you were on holiday?
Easy way to be charged with tax evasion - plus most likely driving
with no insurance since you cannot insure an american licenced vehicle
in Canada.

You have 6 months if visiting, and a couple weeks after importing to
change the registration.
Bringing a car across the border to stay without geclaring it is also
smuggling..

Bad Jiu Jiu if you get caught.

How absurd. Don't the Canadians trust the Americans? If it was ok in one country, it's ok in another one.

The Americans don't "trust" the Canadians any more than the Canadians
"trust" the Americans, but it doesn't come down to "trust" - it comes
down to "regulations"

Does your mommy know you are using her computer?

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 09:03:02 -0700, 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.

No software required at all for a simple "electronic flasher" like has
been in common use for well over 30 years as a substitute or
replacement for the simple thermal bi-metalic flasher

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.

But an "electronic flasher" also makes the noise as part of it's basic
design - only now it is a relay clicking so it is a bit quieter - and
some actually "squeek" due to an oscillator that is part of the basic
timer design.

. 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?

On some cars, yes they still are "hardwired" Just like on some cars
the ECU has nothing to do with the turn indicators.

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 Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:13:24 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:32:20 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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.

You've never seen a volvo with DRLs?

My father had one decades ago, before DRL was anywhere but Sweden.

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.

Ignorance is no excuse. As a driver YOU have the responsibility of
checking your vehicle and making sure it is in safe operating
condition.

That's what I bloody said you moron. You said above that the law enforcement officers were being ignorant, which is irrelevant. Forgetting to put your lights on is as serious as having faulty ones. The net result is the same, no lights. And in fact it should be MORE serious, and in the UK it is. If I forget to wear a seatbelt, or forget to stay under the speed limit, I get a fine. If I have a bald tyre or a faulty bulb because I haven't checked it recently, I have to get it fixed within 2 weeks, but no fine.

--
On the topic of mobile phones:
Anything bigger than 4 inches is getting into the region where most people would have difficulty holding and using the device comfortably -- Callum Kerr, 2013.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:16:53 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:58:05 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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?
I spend most of my work time fixing the machines - - - -

But imagine those machines didn't exist and you had to do the work the machines currently do. That would take longer.

--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on newsgroups?

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 09:07:11 -0700, 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.]
many vehicles currently record the last "X" seconds of information -
speed, steering input, brake input etc in a loop that is stopped when
the airbags go off, so the speed at impact and weather the brakes were
applied or not is frozen fr all time.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:38:01 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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.

I think it's called a back formation, from an earlier word. It may be
standard some day. Quite a few of words we use all the time started
that way. Especially when no other simple word means the same
thing. It's from surveillance of course, and I think whatever French
verb that noun comes from is "survey" in English, but to say "I
surveyed my girlfriend" would give entirely the wrong impression.

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?

We've been friends for 20 years now, since we broke up. This guy
came years later. She thought he was out with someone else.

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

I know he read the email btw. He seemed to open it 3 times over 4 or
5 days.

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.

He would only have to have an arrangement with another dentist or two.
It wouldn't even have to be someone in the same practice**. And I
assumed he did. I assumed that any decent dentist has that*** and
later I saw t hat he had an emergency number on his webpage. But the
number was, I guess, his number, not some service that would find the
dentist on call.

**For example my brother is a radiologist, and even though it was
known when he started that he would take vacations, iiuc when he went
out of town, it was his responsibility to arrange with another
radiologist to work for him. Fortunately there was one who didn't
work full time because she had a young child, and she would work two
weeks for him or two days, as she did sometimes for other radiologists
in town. But not 50 weeks a year.

***which implies he's not a decent dentist, and he's not.

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?

Only that I don't know how to do it.

Both could be bypassed with a simple rewire.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:25:14 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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.

No wonder, for as much as you've posted.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:25:03 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 04:01:43 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:32:46 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:52:32 -0000, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

On 02/12/2016 04:27 PM, 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

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


My car is more than ten years old, but yes, there are cars out there
much older. At one time cars did not last very long
My 20 year old pickup had DRL

I see you have .ca email address. AFAIK, DRLs were required in Canada
long ago, but on our Canadian-built '02 Chrysler 300M DRLs weren't even
a factory-fitted option; I bought the module and plugged it in, and they
work.

They were not an option in "export" vehicles in 02 because some idiot
states still had laws on the books making them illegal, apparently.

At least on an Canadian built US market vehicle all you need to do is
plug in a module to make them work and make them legal for importation
into canada.
Many US built "domestic market" vehicles require a real bodge job to
get DRLs working to make them legal to import into Canada (along with
things like having to replace the inferior-spec bumpers etc).It used
to be quite a few US vehicles could not be imported into canada at all
because they could not be brought up to Canadian spec, but most of
them are now over 15 years old and allowed in. There are still some
that cannot be brought in - like 2005 2wd Jimmy/Blazer, any Lotus
other than 01-04 esprit,, Mercedes CLK63 Black Series or S500 Guard
Package, Tesla Model S, some Masaratti and McLaren, and quite a few
Saleen, Shelby and Roush Mustangs (if converted after sale - not
purchased from Ford as finished vehicles) and van conversions not done
by a recognized list of converters.

We just bought a 2008 Pontiac Vibe (re-badged Toyota Matrix) from a
Canadian friend who was returning to Canada and didn't want to have to
mess with beefing it up to Canadian standards on top of having to pay
import duty.

Can't he just drive it registered to the US? Like if you were on holiday?
Easy way to be charged with tax evasion - plus most likely driving
with no insurance since you cannot insure an american licenced vehicle
in Canada.

You have 6 months if visiting, and a couple weeks after importing to
change the registration.
Bringing a car across the border to stay without geclaring it is also
smuggling..

Bad Jiu Jiu if you get caught.

How absurd. Don't the Canadians trust the Americans? If it was ok in one country, it's ok in another one.

You know that American states have the same rules among each other. 30
days after moving to Md. to change your car's registration to Md. and
paid sales tax on it if iirc you didn't pay sales tax before.

And Canadian provinces?

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:28:38 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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?
Yes I do. The truck has DRLs, and a large portion of the miles driven
on the truck were driven with full lighting (early morning and
evening)

On 2/13/2016 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 09:07:11 -0700, 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.]
many vehicles currently record the last "X" seconds of information -
speed, steering input, brake input etc in a loop that is stopped when
the airbags go off, so the speed at impact and weather the brakes were
applied or not is frozen fr all time.

Yes, it's called a "black box" (named for the "black boxes" on aircraft).

But, as many vehicles can (and do!) connect to remote servers, you
don't really know *what* information the car is leaking about your
driving activities.

E.g., our GPS has support for real-time "traffic" updates.
If tasked with designing such a capability, I'd immediately posit:
"Well, we have lots of OUR VEHICLES on the streets.

They each know where *they* are located.

They also know how fast they are traveling.

If we ASSUME that the drivers are trying to drive as fast as
conditions permit, then the current speed of a particular vehicle
on a particular stretch of roadway can be a reasonable indication
of the traffic conditions on that roadway -- at this instant!

So, have all the vehicles report their location to our server.

Then, sort through any conflicting reports and update the real-time
*traffic map* to reflect these conditions.

And, on the next update cycle, tell the vehicles what the traffic
in their vicinity is like.

I.e., let the drivers be our data collection system!"

A side effect of this is that *your* vehicle's position is continually
reported "for the benefit of others" -- not just when *you* attempt
to contact the "concierge service", "emergency 911", etc.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:29:24 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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.
You may be a photographer, mabee even a good one - but I have my
doubts about your driving.

On 2/13/2016 2:54 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/13/2016 12:51 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.

ahh Well Pete said it was MPH, so KPH would make a big difference. Thanks.

Possible, but I know of cases where the passenger looked at the speedo
and forgot about the difference.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:29:39 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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.
OK I'll spell it out for you.

I D I O T.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:30:03 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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.
Her???

I'm all male - and my email address is my email address, not my name.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:29:44 -0000, Micky wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:38:01 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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.

I think it's called a back formation, from an earlier word. It may be
standard some day. Quite a few of words we use all the time started
that way. Especially when no other simple word means the same
thing. It's from surveillance of course, and I think whatever French
verb that noun comes from is "survey" in English, but to say "I
surveyed my girlfriend" would give entirely the wrong impression.

Survey is more to find out about what something is (land heights etc for a map), surveil is more what something (or someone) is doing. Surveying your girlfriend would be determining the size of her breasts.

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?

We've been friends for 20 years now, since we broke up. This guy
came years later. She thought he was out with someone else.

When will people grow out of monogamy?

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

I know he read the email btw. He seemed to open it 3 times over 4 or
5 days.

How do you know he read the email? Not those read receipt things? I used to forward all my work email to another address so I could read them both together. The forwarding process returned a certificate saying I'd deleted it without opening it. Some people got upset, then surprised I'd done what they'd asked me to in the email I had "deleted".

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.

He would only have to have an arrangement with another dentist or two.
It wouldn't even have to be someone in the same practice**.

But if I have a toothache, I don't phone my dentist, she's busy doing dental work. I phone the practice receptionist, who book me in with her, or someone else if she has no available time soon enough for me.

And I assumed he did. I assumed that any decent dentist has that*** and
later I saw that he had an emergency number on his webpage. But the
number was, I guess, his number, not some service that would find the
dentist on call.

**For example my brother is a radiologist, and even though it was
known when he started that he would take vacations, iiuc when he went
out of town, it was his responsibility to arrange with another
radiologist to work for him. Fortunately there was one who didn't
work full time because she had a young child, and she would work two
weeks for him or two days, as she did sometimes for other radiologists
in town. But not 50 weeks a year.

People should employ receptionists and not take calls themselves.

***which implies he's not a decent dentist, and he's not.

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?

Only that I don't know how to do it.

If it's when the engine is off, go in the fusebox and change the incoming wore to the headlight fuse from IGN to BATT.

If it's when it's daylight, I don't know why you need that, but just cover the light sensor up, then you can use them as if it weren't automatic.

--
On going to war over religion:
You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend. -- Richard Jeni

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:30:55 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:25:14 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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.

No wonder, for as much as you've posted.

Do grow up.

--
"You, you, and you ... Panic. The rest of you, come with me."
- U.S. Marine Corp Gunnery Sgt.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:33:09 -0000, Micky wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:25:03 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 04:01:43 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:32:46 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:52:32 -0000, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

On 02/12/2016 04:27 PM, 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

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


My car is more than ten years old, but yes, there are cars out there
much older. At one time cars did not last very long
My 20 year old pickup had DRL

I see you have .ca email address. AFAIK, DRLs were required in Canada
long ago, but on our Canadian-built '02 Chrysler 300M DRLs weren't even
a factory-fitted option; I bought the module and plugged it in, and they
work.

They were not an option in "export" vehicles in 02 because some idiot
states still had laws on the books making them illegal, apparently.

At least on an Canadian built US market vehicle all you need to do is
plug in a module to make them work and make them legal for importation
into canada.
Many US built "domestic market" vehicles require a real bodge job to
get DRLs working to make them legal to import into Canada (along with
things like having to replace the inferior-spec bumpers etc).It used
to be quite a few US vehicles could not be imported into canada at all
because they could not be brought up to Canadian spec, but most of
them are now over 15 years old and allowed in. There are still some
that cannot be brought in - like 2005 2wd Jimmy/Blazer, any Lotus
other than 01-04 esprit,, Mercedes CLK63 Black Series or S500 Guard
Package, Tesla Model S, some Masaratti and McLaren, and quite a few
Saleen, Shelby and Roush Mustangs (if converted after sale - not
purchased from Ford as finished vehicles) and van conversions not done
by a recognized list of converters.

We just bought a 2008 Pontiac Vibe (re-badged Toyota Matrix) from a
Canadian friend who was returning to Canada and didn't want to have to
mess with beefing it up to Canadian standards on top of having to pay
import duty.

Can't he just drive it registered to the US? Like if you were on holiday?
Easy way to be charged with tax evasion - plus most likely driving
with no insurance since you cannot insure an american licenced vehicle
in Canada.

You have 6 months if visiting, and a couple weeks after importing to
change the registration.
Bringing a car across the border to stay without geclaring it is also
smuggling..

Bad Jiu Jiu if you get caught.

How absurd. Don't the Canadians trust the Americans? If it was ok in one country, it's ok in another one.

You know that American states have the same rules among each other. 30
days after moving to Md. to change your car's registration to Md. and
paid sales tax on it if iirc you didn't pay sales tax before.

And Canadian provinces?

What a farce. Complete and utter lack of communication.

--
An airliner was having engine trouble, and the pilot instructed the cabin crew to have the passengers take their seats and get prepared for an emergency landing.
A few minutes later, the pilot asked the flight attendants if everyone was buckled in and ready.
"All set back here, Captain," came the reply, "except one lawyer who is still going around passing out business cards."

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:33:18 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:28:38 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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?
Yes I do. The truck has DRLs, and a large portion of the miles driven
on the truck were driven with full lighting (early morning and
evening)

What kind of bulbs? At 20 years old they'd be incandescent, not LED surely?

--
An airliner was having engine trouble, and the pilot instructed the cabin crew to have the passengers take their seats and get prepared for an emergency landing.
A few minutes later, the pilot asked the flight attendants if everyone was buckled in and ready.
"All set back here, Captain," came the reply, "except one lawyer who is still going around passing out business cards."

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:34:24 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:29:24 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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.
You may be a photographer, mabee even a good one - but I have my
doubts about your driving.

We're discussing the ability to see objects.

--
How do you titillate an ocelot?
Oscillate its titalot.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:31:04 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of the car
is comming towards you at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the closing
speed is 190kph.,

From the rear, you are approaching at the difference between his speed
and yours. If he's doing 100 and you are doing 90 you will never meet.
If you are doing 100 and he is doing 90, you are approaching at 10kph.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:35:07 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:29:39 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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.
OK I'll spell it out for you.

I D I O T.

Now try explaining your opinion instead of just dismissing mine as though everybody knows yours is correct.

--
How do you titillate an ocelot?
Oscillate its titalot.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:36:59 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:30:03 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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.
Her???

I'm all male

Most Clares are female.

- and my email address is my email address, not my name.

You put your email address in the From field. Most people put their name there.

--
Old Lady - "What is that funny looking thing over there?"
Zoo Keeper - "That's a kangaroo, madam. a native of Australia,"
Old Lady - "Oh, my god! My sister married one of them!"

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:40:44 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:31:04 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

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?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of the car
is comming towards you

On the other side of the road, it's far easier to hit the back of another car than one going the other way on the wrong side.

at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the closing
speed is 190kph.,

Oh no, you don't actually believe that do you? Answer this simple question:

Situation 1: You drive at 50mph into a brick wall.
Situation 2: You drive at 50mph into another identical car going at 50mph the other way.

Which causes more damage to your car and you?

From the rear, you are approaching at the difference between his speed
and yours. If he's doing 100 and you are doing 90 you will never meet.
If you are doing 100 and he is doing 90, you are approaching at 10kph.

The problem arises when he stops and you don't.

--
Watching his date from the corner of his eye while he poured her a drink, the young bachelor said, "Say when."
She replied, "Right after that drink."

On 02/13/2016 08:25 AM, wrote:
You are one of the more rational. Back when DRLs were first proposed
you wouldn't believe how many people south of the border ranted and
raved about government intervention and forcing them to burn more
gas!!!!

I don't think the average motorist can even make the connection between
a miniscule increase in gas consumption and DRLs.

On 02/13/2016 09:51 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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.

No, but if you're a soccer mom putting on your lipstick, you might hit
it. The more lights the better was the rationale for the extra stop light.

On 02/13/2016 12:26 AM, Don Y wrote:
he issue is that there are no "obvious" rules governing when/where you
should ENTER that lane! So, I could opt to start *driving* in it
(not just waiting to turn) long before I plan on actually turning.
This, of course, means anyone wanting to make a turn at any of the
places I "drive by" gets screwed into waiting (in their LEFTMOST
lane of traffic) until I've driven past.

I've seen that a lot on the five lanes here. Someone sees a clear spot
in the two lanes on their side and crosses them, hanging out in the
suicide lane waiting for a break so they can merge in. As you say,
there's no real definition. We have a lot of four way stops. Most
drivers have figured out the etiquette and they work well. Conflicts in
the suicide lanes don't occur regularly enough for there to be an
etiquette.

At least we don't have the Tucson system where the direction of the lane
changes depending on the time of day.

No, that's primarily in D.C.

I thought Grant or one of those had a fifth center lane that was
westbound in the afternoon and eastbound in the morning.

On 02/13/2016 12:23 AM, Don Y wrote:
If you want to be noticed, you have to stand out by "being different".
E.g., a headlight that flashes, etc.

Some bike riders install aftermarket headlight modulators that sort of
makes them warble, if that's a word to apply to a visual effect. That
may be illegal in some jurisdictions and certainly isn't wide spread.

I don't know how effective they are. After having people pull out in
front of me when I was driving a 13' 6" high, 65' vehicle with a bright
red cab and the headlights on. I find it safer just to consider my
fellow motorists as escapees from a sheltered workshop.

On 2/13/2016 3:49 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Again, why do you want the front of cars lit up but not the back?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of the car
is comming towards you

On the other side of the road, it's far easier to hit the back of
another car than one going the other way on the wrong side.

at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the closing
speed is 190kph.,

Oh no, you don't actually believe that do you? Answer this simple
question:

Situation 1: You drive at 50mph into a brick wall.
Situation 2: You drive at 50mph into another identical car going at
50mph the other way.

WTF does that have to do with closing speed? He never said anything
about damage, but closing speed has a lot to do with time to evade an
accident. I thought you were smarter than that Harry.

On 02/13/2016 08:27 AM, wrote:
Ignore it and it ends up being a 50,000 lb peterbuilt with a blown
headlight???

I drove OTR for about 7 years in the '90s. In my case it was a Volvo
White. Trust me when I say people can ignore 75,000 pounds of dried
beans bearing down on them. They also have the quaint idea they can play
chicken with a truck and win.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:29:37 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/13/2016 3:49 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Again, why do you want the front of cars lit up but not the back?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of the car
is comming towards you

On the other side of the road, it's far easier to hit the back of
another car than one going the other way on the wrong side.

at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the closing
speed is 190kph.,

Oh no, you don't actually believe that do you? Answer this simple
question:

Situation 1: You drive at 50mph into a brick wall.
Situation 2: You drive at 50mph into another identical car going at
50mph the other way.

WTF does that have to do with closing speed? He never said anything
about damage, but closing speed has a lot to do with time to evade an
accident. I thought you were smarter than that Harry.

She wasn't clear what she meant by it. But most people use closing speed when talking about damage.

--
A Muslim was sitting next to Paddy on a plane.
Paddy ordered a whisky.
The stewardess asked the Muslim if he'd like a drink.
He replied in disgust "I'd rather be raped by a dozen whores than let liquor touch my lips!"
Paddy handed his drink back and said
"Me too, I didn't know we had a choice!"

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:12:00 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:08:10 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:25:03 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 04:01:43 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:32:46 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:52:32 -0000, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

On 02/12/2016 04:27 PM, 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

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


My car is more than ten years old, but yes, there are cars out there
much older. At one time cars did not last very long
My 20 year old pickup had DRL

I see you have .ca email address. AFAIK, DRLs were required in Canada
long ago, but on our Canadian-built '02 Chrysler 300M DRLs weren't even
a factory-fitted option; I bought the module and plugged it in, and they
work.

They were not an option in "export" vehicles in 02 because some idiot
states still had laws on the books making them illegal, apparently.

At least on an Canadian built US market vehicle all you need to do is
plug in a module to make them work and make them legal for importation
into canada.
Many US built "domestic market" vehicles require a real bodge job to
get DRLs working to make them legal to import into Canada (along with
things like having to replace the inferior-spec bumpers etc).It used
to be quite a few US vehicles could not be imported into canada at all
because they could not be brought up to Canadian spec, but most of
them are now over 15 years old and allowed in. There are still some
that cannot be brought in - like 2005 2wd Jimmy/Blazer, any Lotus
other than 01-04 esprit,, Mercedes CLK63 Black Series or S500 Guard
Package, Tesla Model S, some Masaratti and McLaren, and quite a few
Saleen, Shelby and Roush Mustangs (if converted after sale - not
purchased from Ford as finished vehicles) and van conversions not done
by a recognized list of converters.

We just bought a 2008 Pontiac Vibe (re-badged Toyota Matrix) from a
Canadian friend who was returning to Canada and didn't want to have to
mess with beefing it up to Canadian standards on top of having to pay
import duty.

Can't he just drive it registered to the US? Like if you were on holiday?
Easy way to be charged with tax evasion - plus most likely driving
with no insurance since you cannot insure an american licenced vehicle
in Canada.

You have 6 months if visiting, and a couple weeks after importing to
change the registration.
Bringing a car across the border to stay without geclaring it is also
smuggling..

Bad Jiu Jiu if you get caught.

How absurd. Don't the Canadians trust the Americans? If it was ok in one country, it's ok in another one.

The Americans don't "trust" the Canadians any more than the Canadians
"trust" the Americans, but it doesn't come down to "trust" - it comes
down to "regulations"

Does your mommy know you are using her computer?

You can't follow simple reasoning. If the Americans deem a car safe, then the Canadians should accept that, and vice versa.
Different safety requirements. Who is to say the USA is right????
Canadian safety standards tend to be higher than USA standards for
many things. We are 2 different countries - with 2 different legal
systems, 2 different sets of laws,

On 02/13/2016 10:24 AM, Muggles wrote:
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.


She's better than most. You can make eye contact, or at least think
you've made contact, and still be ignored. You're not a SUV, you're not
a threat, so it just doesn't register.

On 2/13/2016 3:31 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/13/2016 08:27 AM, wrote:
Ignore it and it ends up being a 50,000 lb peterbuilt with a blown
headlight???

I drove OTR for about 7 years in the '90s. In my case it was a Volvo
White. Trust me when I say people can ignore 75,000 pounds of dried
beans bearing down on them. They also have the quaint idea they can play
chicken with a truck and win.

My husband did OTR for a while, and then drove locally for a while. He
said a lot of people had that same quaint idea about playing chicken
with trucks!

--
Maggie

On 2/13/2016 3:33 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/13/2016 10:24 AM, Muggles wrote:
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.


She's better than most. You can make eye contact, or at least think
you've made contact, and still be ignored. You're not a SUV, you're not
a threat, so it just doesn't register.

I've come close to pulling out in front of a motor cycle at dusk time -
right before people turn their headlights on.

--
Maggie

On 02/13/2016 08:31 AM, wrote:
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 - - - -

The last time I was in eastern Canada, it was still imperial gallons,
iirc and the Canadian dollar was more or less par.