In Utah, today, a new law is closer to reality. If you have more than 5
vehicles behind you, you must pull out at the first safe place and let them
pass, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT. I foresee lawsuits
on this one. Massive pileups with "people driving under permission from the
State of Utah to exceed the speed limit." It's only logical.

If they ever outlaw nose picking, I'm just going to park my truck and shoot
it.

Steve

SteveB wrote:
In Utah, today, a new law is closer to reality. If you have more than 5
vehicles behind you, you must pull out at the first safe place and let them
pass, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT. I foresee lawsuits
on this one. Massive pileups with "people driving under permission from the
State of Utah to exceed the speed limit." It's only logical.

If they ever outlaw nose picking, I'm just going to park my truck and shoot
it.

Steve


They have that law in Oregon, you know. If not the part about speeding,
then at least the 5 vehicles behind.

I think about it often -- every time I'm 6th or more in line, for miles
and miles and miles, in fact.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it says.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

On Feb 28, 10:57*pm, "SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA wrote:
In Utah, today, a new law is closer to reality. *If you have more than 5
vehicles behind you, you must pull out at the first safe place and let them
pass, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT. *I foresee lawsuits
on this one. *Massive pileups with "people driving under permission from the
State of Utah to exceed the speed limit." *It's only logical.

If they ever outlaw nose picking, I'm just going to park my truck and shoot
it.

Steve

California has a similar law, was the only test question I missed when
I moved into the state and went for a new driver's license. I said
"you're kidding!" when the broad at the counter told me it was true.
She was also looking for cheat sheets on me, apparently most
applicants barely make the written, some have to hire folks to cheat
and take the written for them after failing two or three times. They
all drive like it, too.

No lawsuits out there over that law. It's to prevent drivers from
going bughouse and passing on two lane mountain roads when there's
somebody doing speed limit at the front of the line. They still pass
on curves and in no-passing zones. And they regularly get 50-100 car
pileups in the fog around Sacramento, they speed up to get out of it
faster, even though they can't see two car lengths ahead. Don't miss
that crap at all...

Stan

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:57:16 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA quickly quoth:

In Utah, today, a new law is closer to reality. If you have more than 5
vehicles behind you, you must pull out at the first safe place and let them
pass, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT. I foresee lawsuits
on this one. Massive pileups with "people driving under permission from the
State of Utah to exceed the speed limit." It's only logical.

That's true in California, too. And that's a sane law. They know how
frustrated people get behind slower vehicles and how many stupid
things (passing on shoulder, passing on blind curves) people will try
to get past the slow drivers. It's the latter which makes the law
sane. Besides, it's polite to get your slug ass out of our way. g


If they ever outlaw nose picking, I'm just going to park my truck and shoot
it.

Which, your nose or the poor, innocent truck, you savage?

--
An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes
the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done
or left undone in the short run determines the long run.
-- Sydney J. Harris

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:59:53 -0800, Tim Wescott wrote:

SteveB wrote:
In Utah, today, a new law is closer to reality. If you have more than 5
vehicles behind you, you must pull out at the first safe place and let them
pass, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT. I foresee lawsuits
on this one. Massive pileups with "people driving under permission from the
State of Utah to exceed the speed limit." It's only logical.

If they ever outlaw nose picking, I'm just going to park my truck and shoot
it.

Steve


They have that law in Oregon, you know. If not the part about speeding,
then at least the 5 vehicles behind.

I think about it often -- every time I'm 6th or more in line, for miles
and miles and miles, in fact.


One of the things I really liked when driving in Germany was that, whether or
not they had such a law (don't know), single carriageway roads tended to have
passing places every few miles and slow moving trucks, tractors, camper vans
etc would pull into them and wave the other traffic through. Makes everyone
happier, you appreciate the guys that do it rather than resenting them


Mark Rand
RTFM

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:
In Utah, today, a new law is closer to reality. If you have more than 5
vehicles behind you, you must pull out at the first safe place and let
them pass, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT. I foresee
lawsuits on this one. Massive pileups with "people driving under
permission from the State of Utah to exceed the speed limit." It's only
logical.

If they ever outlaw nose picking, I'm just going to park my truck and
shoot it.

Steve
They have that law in Oregon, you know. If not the part about speeding,
then at least the 5 vehicles behind.

I think about it often -- every time I'm 6th or more in line, for miles
and miles and miles, in fact.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it says.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html


Sounds like you need to enact a law for more officers for enforcement. Or
legalize the taking out of a motorhome engine with a .50 BMG round.

I'm telling you, all we need is more laws.

Steve

"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
...
Not to worry, Steve. It'll be just another law they have no intention of
enforcing.

Bob Swinney

They barely enforce the polygamy laws, and if you look at it, the situation
is very similar .................

Steve

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:57:16 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA quickly quoth:

In Utah, today, a new law is closer to reality. If you have more than 5
vehicles behind you, you must pull out at the first safe place and let them
pass, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT. I foresee lawsuits
on this one. Massive pileups with "people driving under permission from the
State of Utah to exceed the speed limit." It's only logical.

That's true in California, too. And that's a sane law. They know how
frustrated people get behind slower vehicles and how many stupid
things (passing on shoulder, passing on blind curves) people will try
to get past the slow drivers. It's the latter which makes the law
sane. Besides, it's polite to get your slug ass out of our way. g


So many drivers, so few bullets...

Ahh! Driving. That gets me going... Most people have the brain of a
woman when it comes to driving, about the size of a cats brain. I have
driven with my headlights on, day or night, since I started driving,
here in California a law was passed that specifies the driver should
turn on headlights when it's raining. Two years later and the compliance
rate is about 60%. The law about 5 people behind, pull over, compliance
rate about 20%. The law about using your turn signals: compliance level
from women about 20%, from men about 40%. It seems that any driving
action not designed to directly benefit the driver, any action that
would constitute curtesy or foresight is deemed unnecessary.
Me, Me , Me. Why should I turn on headlights, I can see quite well
without them, **** other people... Me, Me, Me. Why should I use my turn
indicators, I know I will be turning soon and it takes sooo much energy
to pull or push the lever. Me, Me Me... I am driving at the speed I feel
comfortable with, if people are behind me, that is their problem and I
am way below the speed limit anyway, and if I think altruistically
people should not be driving that fast anyways, I am a christian and by
driving slowly i am savin souls....

cheers
T.Alan

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:16:46 -0800, "SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA
wrote:


"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
.. .
Not to worry, Steve. It'll be just another law they have no intention of
enforcing.

Bob Swinney

They barely enforce the polygamy laws, and if you look at it, the situation
is very similar .................

Steve

Polygamy should be legal.

Since when does the State have the right to limit the numbers of
people in a binding contract?

Gunner

Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:16:46 -0800, "SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA
wrote:


"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
.. .
Not to worry, Steve. It'll be just another law they have no intention of
enforcing.

Bob Swinney

They barely enforce the polygamy laws, and if you look at it, the situation
is very similar .................

Steve

Polygamy should be legal.

Since when does the State have the right to limit the numbers of
people in a binding contract?

Gunner

I quite agree. The incest laws should cover the actual problem.

"SteveB" wrote: (clip) EVEN IF ALL OF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT.
(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We have that law in California. Also, in California the posted speed limit
may be exceeded if it is safe to do so, considering things like weather,
visibility, traffic, etc. (If you get a ticket, though, you have the burden
of proof to show you were driving safely.) You can also get a ticket for
driving too fast, EVEN IF IT'S BELOW THE POSTED LIMIT. IOW, the law about
holding up a string of five or more cars does not attempt to deal with speed
limits, If five or more cars are held back by one car, it is reasonable to
assume that a higher speed would be reasonable and safe.

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:43:01 GMT, "Pete C." wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:16:46 -0800, "SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA
wrote:


"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
.. .
Not to worry, Steve. It'll be just another law they have no intention of
enforcing.

Bob Swinney

They barely enforce the polygamy laws, and if you look at it, the situation
is very similar .................

Steve

Polygamy should be legal.

Since when does the State have the right to limit the numbers of
people in a binding contract?

Gunner

I quite agree. The incest laws should cover the actual problem.


Darwin's already got that one covered. Enforcement is a bit slow though...



Mark Rand
RTFM

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:57:16 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA quickly quoth:

In Utah, today, a new law is closer to reality. If you have more than 5
vehicles behind you, you must pull out at the first safe place and let them
pass, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT. I foresee lawsuits
on this one. Massive pileups with "people driving under permission from the
State of Utah to exceed the speed limit." It's only logical.

That's true in California, too. And that's a sane law. They know how
frustrated people get behind slower vehicles and how many stupid
things (passing on shoulder, passing on blind curves) people will try
to get past the slow drivers. It's the latter which makes the law
sane. Besides, it's polite to get your slug ass out of our way. g


So many drivers, so few bullets...


Tom, why don't you make huge wire brushes, like the soft ones used in
a car wash? Than a robotic arm to fold it out and take all the paint
off as you pass. If the wires are sharp enough, they won't be able to
see through the windows, and problem solved! Over time, it would be
cheaper than bullets, and can be automated. Don't forget to add a
"Dukes of Hazard" horn! ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

SNIP

here in California a law was passed that specifies the driver should
turn on headlights when it's raining. Two years later and the compliance
rate is about 60%.
I'm not sure about this, but I think the law states that the headlights
should be on when the windshield wipers are on. I feel silly when I
have to turn on my headlights just to use the windshield washers or just
do one swipe of the wipers to remove some mist. :-)

The law about 5 people behind, pull over, compliance rate about 20%.
I think 20% is way too high. People in this state are just NOT going to
pull over for ANYone. I have lost count how many times I have been
driving on a freeway and the CHP or an ambulance comes roaring up the
fast lane with lights and siren going. AND PEOPLE WON'T EVEN PULL OVER
FOR THEM!!!

The law about using your turn signals: compliance level
from women about 20%, from men about 40%.
I didn't think that most cars sold in this state even had Turn signals.

SNIP

I am a christian and by driving slowly i am savin souls....

Unless you are the ONLY soul on the road doing the speed limit. If
everyone else on the road is doing 75 and you are doing 55, YOU are the
hazard.

Wayne

"NoOne N Particular" wrote in message
t...

SNIP

here in California a law was passed that specifies the driver should turn
on headlights when it's raining. Two years later and the compliance rate
is about 60%.
I'm not sure about this, but I think the law states that the headlights
should be on when the windshield wipers are on. I feel silly when I have
to turn on my headlights just to use the windshield washers or just do one
swipe of the wipers to remove some mist. :-)

The law about 5 people behind, pull over, compliance rate about 20%.
I think 20% is way too high. People in this state are just NOT going to
pull over for ANYone. I have lost count how many times I have been
driving on a freeway and the CHP or an ambulance comes roaring up the fast
lane with lights and siren going. AND PEOPLE WON'T EVEN PULL OVER FOR
THEM!!!

The law about using your turn signals: compliance level
from women about 20%, from men about 40%.
I didn't think that most cars sold in this state even had Turn signals.

SNIP

I am a christian and by driving slowly i am savin souls....

Unless you are the ONLY soul on the road doing the speed limit. If
everyone else on the road is doing 75 and you are doing 55, YOU are the
hazard.

Wayne

As a slightly different point of view, the difference between driving 75 and
60 in my Dodge diesel truck for 300 miles is between $20-$30 dollars @
$4/gal. and the time difference is one hour. So I get paid about $25/hr to
slow down. The tiredness factor at the end of a long pull day is reduced @
60mph. All that said if we are running behind we have cruised @ 75(never on
a two lane) with a Lance camper and a dual axle trailer with a small
helicopter loaded. I don't feel as comfortable at that speed though. No
insurance coverage for the helicopter.
I hate the unenforced laws. They just form the basis for some cop with a
little guy syndrome to play gotcha. If California is not going to enforce
the 55mph for autos with trailers, and it sure doesn't look like they are, I
wish they would publicly announce it. We get the habit of ignoring
unenforced laws and there is a drift toward maybe ignoring more of them.
Not all of us have sufficient judgement to know when to stop.

On Feb 29, 10:01*am, Mark Rand wrote:


One of the things I really liked when driving in Germany was that,

The Germans see deeply into the art of driving and road ways.

Obviously the autobahn is number one.

However, what really amazed me about driving in Germany (and France)
is that the speed limits are actually *reasonable*, people *obey* them
far more often, and the law *enforces* the laws more often than they
do here.

Max limit in France seems to be about 130 km/h, and (surprise)
everyone drives at 130 km/h in good weather - just like they do here!
(Canadian freeway speed limit is 100km/h)

Mind you, German roads are kept in fantastic condition. Apparently the
autobahn asphalt is roughly twice as thick as our freeways are. You
really notice the difference at 160km/h in a hatchback.

Regards,

Robin

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:20:06 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:57:16 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA quickly quoth:

In Utah, today, a new law is closer to reality. If you have more than 5
vehicles behind you, you must pull out at the first safe place and let them
pass, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT. I foresee lawsuits
on this one. Massive pileups with "people driving under permission from the
State of Utah to exceed the speed limit." It's only logical.

That's true in California, too. And that's a sane law. They know how
frustrated people get behind slower vehicles and how many stupid
things (passing on shoulder, passing on blind curves) people will try
to get past the slow drivers. It's the latter which makes the law
sane. Besides, it's polite to get your slug ass out of our way. g


So many drivers, so few bullets...

But a properly aimed vaporizing laser at tire level could...

--
An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes
the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done
or left undone in the short run determines the long run.
-- Sydney J. Harris

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:58:32 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:16:46 -0800, "SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA
wrote:


"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
. ..
Not to worry, Steve. It'll be just another law they have no intention of
enforcing.

Bob Swinney

They barely enforce the polygamy laws, and if you look at it, the situation
is very similar .................

Steve

Polygamy should be legal.

Since when does the State have the right to limit the numbers of
people in a binding contract?

Marriage should be illegal. Why should two people (DINKs who share a
home and all expenses) get lower taxes juscuz they're married?
That's discriminating against the single folks like me. Feh! Burn the
contracts and tax everyone the same amount. Better yet, do away with
taxes and downsize the gov't about 80%.

--
An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes
the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done
or left undone in the short run determines the long run.
-- Sydney J. Harris

"Robin S." wrote:

On Feb 29, 10:01 am, Mark Rand wrote:


One of the things I really liked when driving in Germany was that,

The Germans see deeply into the art of driving and road ways.

Obviously the autobahn is number one.

However, what really amazed me about driving in Germany (and France)
is that the speed limits are actually *reasonable*, people *obey* them
far more often, and the law *enforces* the laws more often than they
do here.

I take it you haven't driven in Texas. Speed limits here are generally
reasonable (70-80 on the real highways, 55 on the service roads),
drivers don't generally speed and they are also far more polite than
many other states. I noticed this when I moved here, but my friends back
in the northeast didn't believe me. Someone from the northeast was down
here and made the same comment about drivers here, so I know I'm not
just imagining it.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:58:32 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:16:46 -0800, "SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA
wrote:


"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
.. .
Not to worry, Steve. It'll be just another law they have no intention
of
enforcing.

Bob Swinney

They barely enforce the polygamy laws, and if you look at it, the
situation
is very similar .................

Steve

Polygamy should be legal.

Since when does the State have the right to limit the numbers of
people in a binding contract?

Marriage should be illegal. Why should two people (DINKs who share a
home and all expenses) get lower taxes juscuz they're married?

Because we're the bedrock of society. You're the part that's fouling it up.
You should pay much more. d8-)

That's discriminating against the single folks like me.

Absolutely. Discrimination can be a good thing.

Feh! Burn the
contracts and tax everyone the same amount. Better yet, do away with
taxes and downsize the gov't about 80%.

We'll take out the part that you benefit from first. If you don't know what
part that is, you don't get to vote anymore. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

This is PACK mentality.

A pack of 5 travel as one and bubble to the front of any line.
Much like hole or electron flow, the front people that pull over
are pushed back by 5 or more.

I can see if it is a tractor or farm wagon. But not the typical car.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


SteveB wrote:
In Utah, today, a new law is closer to reality. If you have more than 5
vehicles behind you, you must pull out at the first safe place and let them
pass, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT. I foresee lawsuits
on this one. Massive pileups with "people driving under permission from the
State of Utah to exceed the speed limit." It's only logical.

If they ever outlaw nose picking, I'm just going to park my truck and shoot
it.

Steve

"T.Alan Kraus" wrote in message
...
Ahh! Driving. That gets me going... Most people have the brain of a woman
when it comes to driving, about the size of a cats brain. I have driven
with my headlights on, day or night, since I started driving, here in
California a law was passed that specifies the driver should turn on
headlights when it's raining. Two years later and the compliance rate is
about 60%. The law about 5 people behind, pull over, compliance rate about
20%. The law about using your turn signals: compliance level from women
about 20%, from men about 40%. It seems that any driving action not
designed to directly benefit the driver, any action that would constitute
curtesy or foresight is deemed unnecessary.
Me, Me , Me. Why should I turn on headlights, I can see quite well without
them, **** other people... Me, Me, Me. Why should I use my turn
indicators, I know I will be turning soon and it takes sooo much energy to
pull or push the lever. Me, Me Me... I am driving at the speed I feel
comfortable with, if people are behind me, that is their problem and I am
way below the speed limit anyway, and if I think altruistically people
should not be driving that fast anyways, I am a christian and by driving
slowly i am savin souls....

cheers
T.Alan

What I can't figure out is why are all these people using their fog lights?
Crystal clear fifty mile visibility, and they are using obnoxious fog lights
that give off as much light as high beams. I don't get it.

Steve

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:29:48 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:58:32 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:


Polygamy should be legal.

Since when does the State have the right to limit the numbers of
people in a binding contract?

Marriage should be illegal. Why should two people (DINKs who share a
home and all expenses) get lower taxes juscuz they're married?

Because we're the bedrock of society. You're the part that's fouling it up.
You should pay much more. d8-)

Pfffffffffffffffffft!


That's discriminating against the single folks like me.

Absolutely. Discrimination can be a good thing.

We single white guys are the -real- minority in the USA. Gimme money!


Feh! Burn the
contracts and tax everyone the same amount. Better yet, do away with
taxes and downsize the gov't about 80%.

We'll take out the part that you benefit from first. If you don't know what
part that is, you don't get to vote anymore. d8-)

I can't anyway. I'm over 45. Nix that. I forgot my coupons. Duh!

--
An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes
the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done
or left undone in the short run determines the long run.
-- Sydney J. Harris

SteveB wrote:

What I can't figure out is why are all these people using their fog lights?
Crystal clear fifty mile visibility, and they are using obnoxious fog lights
that give off as much light as high beams. I don't get it.

Steve



Because they have not yet collected enough matching bricks to pave
their BBQ area with.

Help them out. Throw a brick at them! :-)

Cheers
Trevor Jones

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:29:48 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:58:32 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:


Polygamy should be legal.

Since when does the State have the right to limit the numbers of
people in a binding contract?

Marriage should be illegal. Why should two people (DINKs who share a
home and all expenses) get lower taxes juscuz they're married?

Because we're the bedrock of society. You're the part that's fouling it
up.
You should pay much more. d8-)

Pfffffffffffffffffft!


That's discriminating against the single folks like me.

Absolutely. Discrimination can be a good thing.

We single white guys are the -real- minority in the USA. Gimme money!


Feh! Burn the
contracts and tax everyone the same amount. Better yet, do away with
taxes and downsize the gov't about 80%.

We'll take out the part that you benefit from first. If you don't know
what
part that is, you don't get to vote anymore. d8-)

I can't anyway. I'm over 45. Nix that. I forgot my coupons. Duh!

--
An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes
the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done
or left undone in the short run determines the long run.
-- Sydney J. Harris

Sorry. Every once in a while, the little conservative inside of me has to
come out and play. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:43:01 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:16:46 -0800, "SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA
wrote:


"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
.. .
Not to worry, Steve. It'll be just another law they have no intention of
enforcing.

Bob Swinney

They barely enforce the polygamy laws, and if you look at it, the situation
is very similar .................

Steve

Polygamy should be legal.

Since when does the State have the right to limit the numbers of
people in a binding contract?

Gunner

I quite agree. The incest laws should cover the actual problem.

What problem would that be? Poor genetic end results?

Odd..we have that already with unrelated people

Gunner

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:57:16 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA quickly quoth:

In Utah, today, a new law is closer to reality. If you have more than 5
vehicles behind you, you must pull out at the first safe place and let
them
pass, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT. I foresee
lawsuits
on this one. Massive pileups with "people driving under permission from
the
State of Utah to exceed the speed limit." It's only logical.

That's true in California, too. And that's a sane law. They know how
frustrated people get behind slower vehicles and how many stupid
things (passing on shoulder, passing on blind curves) people will try
to get past the slow drivers. It's the latter which makes the law
sane. Besides, it's polite to get your slug ass out of our way. g

This is an example of natural law just getting codified, ther's an
interesting discussion of law vs. legislation on www.econtalk.org

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:57:16 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA quickly quoth:

In Utah, today, a new law is closer to reality. If you have more than
5 vehicles behind you, you must pull out at the first safe place and
let them pass, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT. I
foresee lawsuits on this one. Massive pileups with "people driving
under permission from the State of Utah to exceed the speed limit."
It's only logical.

That's true in California, too. And that's a sane law. They know how
frustrated people get behind slower vehicles and how many stupid
things (passing on shoulder, passing on blind curves) people will try
to get past the slow drivers. It's the latter which makes the law
sane. Besides, it's polite to get your slug ass out of our way. g


Then tell the idiots in Sacto to raise the speed limit for towing to that
used by everyone else.

They've built in a traffic hazard by requiring towing vehicles to travel at
least 15 MPH slower than the rest of the traffic.

"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA wrote in message
...

What I can't figure out is why are all these people using their fog
lights?
Crystal clear fifty mile visibility, and they are using obnoxious fog
lights
that give off as much light as high beams. I don't get it.


If someone has fog lamps that are obnoxious then they are not adjusted
properly. Fog lamps should be aimed lower than low beams. The best ones are
yellow which is less obnoxious than the white light.

I think the lights you take issue with are marketed as "driving" lights for
"off road use only". The reason some folks drive around with those is
because they are assholes.


--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...

"SteveB" wrote: (clip) EVEN IF ALL OF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT.
(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We have that law in California. Also, in California the posted speed
limit
may be exceeded if it is safe to do so, considering things like weather,
visibility, traffic, etc. (If you get a ticket, though, you have the
burden
of proof to show you were driving safely.) You can also get a ticket for
driving too fast, EVEN IF IT'S BELOW THE POSTED LIMIT. IOW, the law about
holding up a string of five or more cars does not attempt to deal with
speed
limits, If five or more cars are held back by one car, it is reasonable
to
assume that a higher speed would be reasonable and safe.



This is not completely correct. CA has a basic speed law that prohibits
driving faster than is safe. That is applicable on any road.

On roads that have a "maximum speed" posted, this can be enforced regardless
of better than average conditions. A prime example of this is in Gunner's
back yard. Trucks going down the grapevine have a maximum speed limit of 35
MPH. Enforcement begins at 36 MPH.

Yet the highway patrol is not entirely unreasonable, once the truck is on
the flat wide open stretch of I5 in that county, the CHP usually ignores
trucks doing a steady 65 in the 55 maximum truck limit.

--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.

"Roger Shoaf" wrote in message
...

"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA wrote in message
...

What I can't figure out is why are all these people using their fog
lights?
Crystal clear fifty mile visibility, and they are using obnoxious fog
lights
that give off as much light as high beams. I don't get it.


If someone has fog lamps that are obnoxious then they are not adjusted
properly. Fog lamps should be aimed lower than low beams. The best ones
are
yellow which is less obnoxious than the white light.

I think the lights you take issue with are marketed as "driving" lights
for
"off road use only". The reason some folks drive around with those is
because they are assholes.

Right. There is some confusion over this, and you point out one of the big
problems in discussing it -- daytime running lights (DRLs) are not the same
thing as flamethrower "driving lights."

As for Steve's initial question, the evidence is pretty clear: DRLs reduce
accidents. This has been known for a long time. Without getting into the
details, here's a brief summary of the studies that have driven this issue
for almost three decades:

================================================== ==
Nearly all published reports indicate DRLs reduce multiple-vehicle daytime
crashes. Evidence about DRL effects on crashes comes from studies conducted
in Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States. A study examining the effect
of Norway's DRL law from 1980 to 1990 found a 10 percent decline in daytime
multiple-vehicle crashes.1 A Danish study reported a 7 percent reduction in
DRL-relevant crashes in the first 15 months after DRL use was required and a
37 percent decline in left-turn crashes.2 In a second study covering 2 years
and 9 months of Denmark's law, there was a 6 percent reduction in daytime
multiple-vehicle crashes and a 34 percent reduction in left-turn crashes.3 A
1994 Transport Canada study comparing 1990 model year vehicles with DRLs to
1989 vehicles without them found that DRLs reduced relevant daytime
multiple-vehicle crashes by 11 percent.4

In the United States, a 1985 Institute study determined that commercial
fleet passenger vehicles modified to operate with DRLs were involved in 7
percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than similar vehicles without
DRLs.5 A small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an 18 percent
lower daytime multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped vehicles.6
Multiple-vehicle daytime crashes account for about half of all
police-reported crashes in the United States. A 2002 Institute study
reported a 3 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crash risk in nine
US states concurrent with the introduction of DRLs.7 Federal researchers,
using data collected nationwide, concluded that there was a 5 percent
decline in daytime, two-vehicle, opposite-direction crashes and a 12 percent
decline in fatal crashes with pedestrians and bicyclists.8

================================================== ===

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 08:34:33 -0800, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:


"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...

"SteveB" wrote: (clip) EVEN IF ALL OF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT.
(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We have that law in California. Also, in California the posted speed
limit
may be exceeded if it is safe to do so, considering things like weather,
visibility, traffic, etc. (If you get a ticket, though, you have the
burden
of proof to show you were driving safely.) You can also get a ticket for
driving too fast, EVEN IF IT'S BELOW THE POSTED LIMIT. IOW, the law about
holding up a string of five or more cars does not attempt to deal with
speed
limits, If five or more cars are held back by one car, it is reasonable
to
assume that a higher speed would be reasonable and safe.



This is not completely correct. CA has a basic speed law that prohibits
driving faster than is safe. That is applicable on any road.

On roads that have a "maximum speed" posted, this can be enforced regardless
of better than average conditions. A prime example of this is in Gunner's
back yard. Trucks going down the grapevine have a maximum speed limit of 35
MPH. Enforcement begins at 36 MPH.

Indeed. and they DO enforce a 1mph overspeed. And its VERY expensive.
1-5 mph over on the Grapevine as I recall, costs a trucker $471 to
start off with and goes up from there.

Of course the Grapevine has had a LONG history of incredibly horrific
deaths on it as the result of truck traffic.

Yet the highway patrol is not entirely unreasonable, once the truck is on
the flat wide open stretch of I5 in that county, the CHP usually ignores
trucks doing a steady 65 in the 55 maximum truck limit.

Generally.

Gunner

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Roger Shoaf" wrote in message
...

"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA wrote in message
...

What I can't figure out is why are all these people using their fog

lights?

Crystal clear fifty mile visibility, and they are using obnoxious fog

lights

that give off as much light as high beams. I don't get it.


If someone has fog lamps that are obnoxious then they are not adjusted
properly. Fog lamps should be aimed lower than low beams. The best ones
are
yellow which is less obnoxious than the white light.

I think the lights you take issue with are marketed as "driving" lights
for
"off road use only". The reason some folks drive around with those is
because they are assholes.


Right. There is some confusion over this, and you point out one of the big
problems in discussing it -- daytime running lights (DRLs) are not the same
thing as flamethrower "driving lights."

As for Steve's initial question, the evidence is pretty clear: DRLs reduce
accidents. This has been known for a long time. Without getting into the
details, here's a brief summary of the studies that have driven this issue
for almost three decades:

================================================== ==
Nearly all published reports indicate DRLs reduce multiple-vehicle daytime
crashes. Evidence about DRL effects on crashes comes from studies conducted
in Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States. A study examining the effect
of Norway's DRL law from 1980 to 1990 found a 10 percent decline in daytime
multiple-vehicle crashes.1 A Danish study reported a 7 percent reduction in
DRL-relevant crashes in the first 15 months after DRL use was required and a
37 percent decline in left-turn crashes.2 In a second study covering 2 years
and 9 months of Denmark's law, there was a 6 percent reduction in daytime
multiple-vehicle crashes and a 34 percent reduction in left-turn crashes.3 A
1994 Transport Canada study comparing 1990 model year vehicles with DRLs to
1989 vehicles without them found that DRLs reduced relevant daytime
multiple-vehicle crashes by 11 percent.4

In the United States, a 1985 Institute study determined that commercial
fleet passenger vehicles modified to operate with DRLs were involved in 7
percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than similar vehicles without
DRLs.5 A small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an 18 percent
lower daytime multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped vehicles.6
Multiple-vehicle daytime crashes account for about half of all
police-reported crashes in the United States. A 2002 Institute study
reported a 3 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crash risk in nine
US states concurrent with the introduction of DRLs.7 Federal researchers,
using data collected nationwide, concluded that there was a 5 percent
decline in daytime, two-vehicle, opposite-direction crashes and a 12 percent
decline in fatal crashes with pedestrians and bicyclists.8

================================================== ===

--
Ed Huntress


When talking about driving, a majority envisions driving on freeways and
forgets the enormous amount of divided secondary and rural roads. Where
I live, these roads are in the majority and also curvy and variably
shaded by trees. There is a constant light play and driving with lights
on affords a few milliseconds of recognition advantage to the other car
driver. It is amazing how many driving silver or green painted cars
blend so well into the pavement or sourroundings. To old eyes like mine,
if their headlights are on, they become immediately very visible.

cheers
T.Alan

"T.Alan Kraus" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Roger Shoaf" wrote in message
...

"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA wrote in message
...

What I can't figure out is why are all these people using their fog

lights?

Crystal clear fifty mile visibility, and they are using obnoxious fog

lights

that give off as much light as high beams. I don't get it.


If someone has fog lamps that are obnoxious then they are not adjusted
properly. Fog lamps should be aimed lower than low beams. The best ones
are
yellow which is less obnoxious than the white light.

I think the lights you take issue with are marketed as "driving" lights
for
"off road use only". The reason some folks drive around with those is
because they are assholes.


Right. There is some confusion over this, and you point out one of the
big problems in discussing it -- daytime running lights (DRLs) are not
the same thing as flamethrower "driving lights."

As for Steve's initial question, the evidence is pretty clear: DRLs
reduce accidents. This has been known for a long time. Without getting
into the details, here's a brief summary of the studies that have driven
this issue for almost three decades:

================================================== ==
Nearly all published reports indicate DRLs reduce multiple-vehicle
daytime crashes. Evidence about DRL effects on crashes comes from studies
conducted in Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States. A study
examining the effect of Norway's DRL law from 1980 to 1990 found a 10
percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes.1 A Danish study
reported a 7 percent reduction in DRL-relevant crashes in the first 15
months after DRL use was required and a 37 percent decline in left-turn
crashes.2 In a second study covering 2 years and 9 months of Denmark's
law, there was a 6 percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes
and a 34 percent reduction in left-turn crashes.3 A 1994 Transport Canada
study comparing 1990 model year vehicles with DRLs to 1989 vehicles
without them found that DRLs reduced relevant daytime multiple-vehicle
crashes by 11 percent.4

In the United States, a 1985 Institute study determined that commercial
fleet passenger vehicles modified to operate with DRLs were involved in 7
percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than similar vehicles
without DRLs.5 A small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an
18 percent lower daytime multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped
vehicles.6 Multiple-vehicle daytime crashes account for about half of all
police-reported crashes in the United States. A 2002 Institute study
reported a 3 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crash risk in
nine US states concurrent with the introduction of DRLs.7 Federal
researchers, using data collected nationwide, concluded that there was a
5 percent decline in daytime, two-vehicle, opposite-direction crashes and
a 12 percent decline in fatal crashes with pedestrians and bicyclists.8

================================================== ===

--
Ed Huntress
When talking about driving, a majority envisions driving on freeways and
forgets the enormous amount of divided secondary and rural roads. Where I
live, these roads are in the majority and also curvy and variably shaded
by trees. There is a constant light play and driving with lights on
affords a few milliseconds of recognition advantage to the other car
driver. It is amazing how many driving silver or green painted cars blend
so well into the pavement or sourroundings. To old eyes like mine, if
their headlights are on, they become immediately very visible.

cheers
T.Alan

'Same here.

--
Ed Huntress

"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA wrote in message
...

"T.Alan Kraus" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Roger Shoaf" wrote in message
...

"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA wrote in message
...

What I can't figure out is why are all these people using their fog

lights?

Crystal clear fifty mile visibility, and they are using obnoxious fog

lights

that give off as much light as high beams. I don't get it.


If someone has fog lamps that are obnoxious then they are not adjusted
properly. Fog lamps should be aimed lower than low beams. The best ones
are
yellow which is less obnoxious than the white light.

I think the lights you take issue with are marketed as "driving" lights
for
"off road use only". The reason some folks drive around with those is
because they are assholes.


Right. There is some confusion over this, and you point out one of the
big problems in discussing it -- daytime running lights (DRLs) are not
the same thing as flamethrower "driving lights."

As for Steve's initial question, the evidence is pretty clear: DRLs
reduce accidents. This has been known for a long time. Without getting
into the details, here's a brief summary of the studies that have driven
this issue for almost three decades:

================================================== ==
Nearly all published reports indicate DRLs reduce multiple-vehicle
daytime crashes. Evidence about DRL effects on crashes comes from
studies conducted in Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States. A study
examining the effect of Norway's DRL law from 1980 to 1990 found a 10
percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes.1 A Danish study
reported a 7 percent reduction in DRL-relevant crashes in the first 15
months after DRL use was required and a 37 percent decline in left-turn
crashes.2 In a second study covering 2 years and 9 months of Denmark's
law, there was a 6 percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes
and a 34 percent reduction in left-turn crashes.3 A 1994 Transport
Canada study comparing 1990 model year vehicles with DRLs to 1989
vehicles without them found that DRLs reduced relevant daytime
multiple-vehicle crashes by 11 percent.4

In the United States, a 1985 Institute study determined that commercial
fleet passenger vehicles modified to operate with DRLs were involved in
7 percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than similar vehicles
without DRLs.5 A small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an
18 percent lower daytime multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped
vehicles.6 Multiple-vehicle daytime crashes account for about half of
all police-reported crashes in the United States. A 2002 Institute study
reported a 3 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crash risk in
nine US states concurrent with the introduction of DRLs.7 Federal
researchers, using data collected nationwide, concluded that there was a
5 percent decline in daytime, two-vehicle, opposite-direction crashes
and a 12 percent decline in fatal crashes with pedestrians and
bicyclists.8

================================================== ===

--
Ed Huntress
When talking about driving, a majority envisions driving on freeways and
forgets the enormous amount of divided secondary and rural roads. Where I
live, these roads are in the majority and also curvy and variably shaded
by trees. There is a constant light play and driving with lights on
affords a few milliseconds of recognition advantage to the other car
driver. It is amazing how many driving silver or green painted cars blend
so well into the pavement or sourroundings. To old eyes like mine, if
their headlights are on, they become immediately very visible.

cheers
T.Alan

I can see having lights on during the day for safety purposes. But
criminently, it doesn't have to be high beams or fog lights (four lights).
And when the visibility is good, the fog lights at night are just plain
ignorant. If these were just a pair of daylight driving lights, and there
were only two of them, I can see that. But why do they have to turn these
on during the day and have four headlights? At night, the four lights are
just borderline as bright as high beam.

They probably don't understand the issue. More is better, they think, or
something like that.


I have them on my truck. The only thing they illuminate when I put them
on is the three feet in front of the bumper, and the guardrail. I usually
focus on areas other than that and see no use in illuminating that area,
except if I were out four wheeling at night and wanted to see right in
front of my truck. Not, if it were foggy, that would be another story.

I have to admit I've never gotten out in front of my cars with the fog
lights on to see what they look like, comin' attacha. Of course, I don't use
them except in snow, heavy rain or fog anyway (and only rarely then), so it
hasn't mattered to me. But now I'm curious. I'll see what it looks like.

--
Ed Huntress

"T.Alan Kraus" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Roger Shoaf" wrote in message
...

"SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA wrote in message
...

What I can't figure out is why are all these people using their fog

lights?

Crystal clear fifty mile visibility, and they are using obnoxious fog

lights

that give off as much light as high beams. I don't get it.


If someone has fog lamps that are obnoxious then they are not adjusted
properly. Fog lamps should be aimed lower than low beams. The best ones
are
yellow which is less obnoxious than the white light.

I think the lights you take issue with are marketed as "driving" lights
for
"off road use only". The reason some folks drive around with those is
because they are assholes.


Right. There is some confusion over this, and you point out one of the
big problems in discussing it -- daytime running lights (DRLs) are not
the same thing as flamethrower "driving lights."

As for Steve's initial question, the evidence is pretty clear: DRLs
reduce accidents. This has been known for a long time. Without getting
into the details, here's a brief summary of the studies that have driven
this issue for almost three decades:

================================================== ==
Nearly all published reports indicate DRLs reduce multiple-vehicle
daytime crashes. Evidence about DRL effects on crashes comes from studies
conducted in Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States. A study
examining the effect of Norway's DRL law from 1980 to 1990 found a 10
percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes.1 A Danish study
reported a 7 percent reduction in DRL-relevant crashes in the first 15
months after DRL use was required and a 37 percent decline in left-turn
crashes.2 In a second study covering 2 years and 9 months of Denmark's
law, there was a 6 percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes
and a 34 percent reduction in left-turn crashes.3 A 1994 Transport Canada
study comparing 1990 model year vehicles with DRLs to 1989 vehicles
without them found that DRLs reduced relevant daytime multiple-vehicle
crashes by 11 percent.4

In the United States, a 1985 Institute study determined that commercial
fleet passenger vehicles modified to operate with DRLs were involved in 7
percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than similar vehicles
without DRLs.5 A small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an
18 percent lower daytime multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped
vehicles.6 Multiple-vehicle daytime crashes account for about half of all
police-reported crashes in the United States. A 2002 Institute study
reported a 3 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crash risk in
nine US states concurrent with the introduction of DRLs.7 Federal
researchers, using data collected nationwide, concluded that there was a
5 percent decline in daytime, two-vehicle, opposite-direction crashes and
a 12 percent decline in fatal crashes with pedestrians and bicyclists.8

================================================== ===

--
Ed Huntress
When talking about driving, a majority envisions driving on freeways and
forgets the enormous amount of divided secondary and rural roads. Where I
live, these roads are in the majority and also curvy and variably shaded
by trees. There is a constant light play and driving with lights on
affords a few milliseconds of recognition advantage to the other car
driver. It is amazing how many driving silver or green painted cars blend
so well into the pavement or sourroundings. To old eyes like mine, if
their headlights are on, they become immediately very visible.

cheers
T.Alan

I can see having lights on during the day for safety purposes. But
criminently, it doesn't have to be high beams or fog lights (four lights).
And when the visibility is good, the fog lights at night are just plain
ignorant. If these were just a pair of daylight driving lights, and there
were only two of them, I can see that. But why do they have to turn these
on during the day and have four headlights? At night, the four lights are
just borderline as bright as high beam.

I have them on my truck. The only thing they illuminate when I put them on
is the three feet in front of the bumper, and the guardrail. I usually
focus on areas other than that and see no use in illuminating that area,
except if I were out four wheeling at night and wanted to see right in front
of my truck. Not, if it were foggy, that would be another story.

Steve

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 15:39:11 -0800, "SteveB" meagain@rockvilleUSA
wrote:


I can see having lights on during the day for safety purposes. But
criminently, it doesn't have to be high beams or fog lights (four lights).
And when the visibility is good, the fog lights at night are just plain
ignorant. If these were just a pair of daylight driving lights, and there
were only two of them, I can see that. But why do they have to turn these
on during the day and have four headlights? At night, the four lights are
just borderline as bright as high beam.

I have them on my truck. The only thing they illuminate when I put them on
is the three feet in front of the bumper, and the guardrail. I usually
focus on areas other than that and see no use in illuminating that area,
except if I were out four wheeling at night and wanted to see right in front
of my truck. Not, if it were foggy, that would be another story.

Steve

I liked the headlight system on my '90 Lumina APV - low beams at
reduced output when the engine is running during daylight. Enter a low
light area or block the sensor and all lights come on full brightness
- high or low controlled by the driver. When SWMBO picked up the
vehicle, the salesman showed her the light switch and told her "never
touch it" no more dead battery until the teens discovered the reading
lights.
Most of the A'holes with "driving lamps" want them within 6" of the
road, showing more lighted area than the factory installed system, and
on when the vehicle is occupied. A Winchester 94 with a filtered scope
would improve these "Driving Lamps" greatly.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 17:55:58 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


They probably don't understand the issue. More is better, they think, or
something like that.


I have them on my truck. The only thing they illuminate when I put them
on is the three feet in front of the bumper, and the guardrail. I usually
focus on areas other than that and see no use in illuminating that area,
except if I were out four wheeling at night and wanted to see right in
front of my truck. Not, if it were foggy, that would be another story.

I have to admit I've never gotten out in front of my cars with the fog
lights on to see what they look like, comin' attacha. Of course, I don't use
them except in snow, heavy rain or fog anyway (and only rarely then), so it
hasn't mattered to me. But now I'm curious. I'll see what it looks like.

Driving with (front) foglights on when the visibility of more than 50metres
(165ft) is actually an offence in Blighty. Automatic points on your license
and a fine. Trouble is, in 35 years I've never heard of even one occasion when
it has been enforced :-|


Mark Rand
RTFM

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 17:55:58 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


They probably don't understand the issue. More is better, they think, or
something like that.


I have them on my truck. The only thing they illuminate when I put them
on is the three feet in front of the bumper, and the guardrail. I
usually
focus on areas other than that and see no use in illuminating that area,
except if I were out four wheeling at night and wanted to see right in
front of my truck. Not, if it were foggy, that would be another story.

I have to admit I've never gotten out in front of my cars with the fog
lights on to see what they look like, comin' attacha. Of course, I don't
use
them except in snow, heavy rain or fog anyway (and only rarely then), so
it
hasn't mattered to me. But now I'm curious. I'll see what it looks like.

Driving with (front) foglights on when the visibility of more than
50metres
(165ft) is actually an offence in Blighty. Automatic points on your
license
and a fine. Trouble is, in 35 years I've never heard of even one occasion
when
it has been enforced :-|


Mark Rand
RTFM

I haven't driven in the UK for decades, but my recollection is that your
foglights are a LOT more powerful than ours.

--
Ed Huntress