On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:12:10 +0100 someone who may be ":Jerry:"
wrote this:-

How about citing some facts Mr Hansen rather than some anti oil, anti
capitalist, anti motor vehicle, **opinions**.

I quoted several facts. However, you snipped them, presumably
because you were unwilling or unable to counter them. Instead you
responded with a little tirade. That may fool some of the people
some of the time.

Unless some arguments replace the tirade you may have the last word.
My last word is to point people at
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/SPE%202004%20Annual%20Conference.pdf
which is a link from the page I have already quoted
http://www.depletion-scotland.org.uk/index.htm and read for
themselves.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:12:10 +0100 someone who may be ":Jerry:"
wrote this:-

How about citing some facts Mr Hansen rather than some anti oil,
anti
capitalist, anti motor vehicle, **opinions**.

I quoted several facts.

No, you are citing opinion.

However, you snipped them, presumably
because you were unwilling or unable to counter them.

Because they were opinions, not facts.

Instead you
responded with a little tirade. That may fool some of the people
some of the time.

Whilst you only ever cite opinions that back your 'anti' agenda, and
don't try and hide the fact that you are about as anti motor vehicle
as it's possible to be without actually engaging in direct action - a
simple Google groups search will turn up your opinions on 'those
idiots who drive'.


Unless some arguments replace the tirade you may have the last word.
My last word is to point people at
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/SPE%202004%20Annual%20Conference.pdf
which is a link from the page I have already quoted
http://www.depletion-scotland.org.uk/index.htm and read for
themselves.


"Welcome to the Web Site of Depletion Scotland. We are a group of
individuals based...."

As I said, Mr Hansen cites opinion rather than facts, and at that,
solely opinions regarding Scottish oil production...

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
Lumme that stirred it up - and it was only the RF pollution I mentioned!

A couple of points guys on that long discussion:

Colour Temperature - the CFL is a lot closer to daylight for our
3-colour-sensor eyes than the old incandescent. I daresay people said

Daylight covers a wide range, from dawn (2100K), through to midday
(5600K), through to just before twilight (2100K). Incandescent (2700K)
is a damn good match for daylight at the time we need to start enhancing
light levels for our own comfort at home. What we in effect do in our
homes
is stretch out the early evening period before twilight for which daylight
is 2700K way into the evening/night, both at the colour temperature and
comenserate lumen level (illumination level).

Office and other workplaces generally have more demanding lighting
requirements to keep us working more optimally rather than dozing off.
Hence office lighting tends to operate at 3500K and higher lumen
levels, mimiking a natural daytime period even further from night time
than we chose to do at home.

For a natural feel, it is reasonably important that the colour
temperature and lumen level are reasonably well synchronised. If you
turn on a 5600K fluorescent in the evening, it will look horribly blue,
but this is because the lumen level is completely wrong. Unfortunately,
to get the lumen level up to midday levels, you are going to have to
completely cover your ceiling with fluorescent fittings. If you do
this, that colour temperature will then appear natural at that lumen
level. (This effect is named after someone, but I've forgotten the name,
and a google search was no help.)

that the incandescent was too blue, and lamplight was better... And no,
I
wouldn't want to mix paint under a CFL. Nor choose it.

You probably want to do that under the conditions you are most often
going to view it. In a bedroom for example, in most cases, that's not
going to be with daylight streaming in the windows.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

All of what you say is quite true, but the colour temperature must be taken
in conjunction with the CRI, which for a CFL is less than the ideal of 95 -
100, by quite a margin. It is this shortcoming, rather than the colour
temperature, which gives rise to the 'sick' quality of the light, no matter
how close it is to matching daylight, at any time of the day, in terms of
colour temperature.

LED lighting suffers similarly, because again, like the individual phosphors
in the tricolour mix used to coat the CFL's discharge tube, each individual
LED colour used, has a narrow spectrum of output, giving rise to an overall
'peaky' spectrum, rather than the much 'smoother' ones of daylight and
incandescent light.

Arfa

In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
.uk...
Lumme that stirred it up - and it was only the RF pollution I mentioned!

A couple of points guys on that long discussion:

Colour Temperature - the CFL is a lot closer to daylight for our
3-colour-sensor eyes than the old incandescent. I daresay people said

Daylight covers a wide range, from dawn (2100K), through to midday
(5600K), through to just before twilight (2100K). Incandescent (2700K)
is a damn good match for daylight at the time we need to start enhancing
light levels for our own comfort at home. What we in effect do in our homes
is stretch out the early evening period before twilight for which daylight
is 2700K way into the evening/night, both at the colour temperature and
comenserate lumen level (illumination level).

Colour Temperatures out of which textbook? I've seen exteriors at 8000K
at which Colour Temperature I needed gain in the camera.
--
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

In article ,
Tony Quinn writes:
In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
t.uk...
Lumme that stirred it up - and it was only the RF pollution I mentioned!

A couple of points guys on that long discussion:

Colour Temperature - the CFL is a lot closer to daylight for our
3-colour-sensor eyes than the old incandescent. I daresay people said

Daylight covers a wide range, from dawn (2100K), through to midday
(5600K), through to just before twilight (2100K). Incandescent (2700K)
is a damn good match for daylight at the time we need to start enhancing
light levels for our own comfort at home. What we in effect do in our homes
is stretch out the early evening period before twilight for which daylight
is 2700K way into the evening/night, both at the colour temperature and
comenserate lumen level (illumination level).

Colour Temperatures out of which textbook? I've seen exteriors at 8000K
at which Colour Temperature I needed gain in the camera.

Well, the sun isn't that hot. You can get colour temperatures that
high by filtering out the direct sunlight which has more of the red
components (e.g. in the shade), and just using the blue light
scattered in the atmosphere (i.e. the blue sky). Generally when
people talk of midday colour temperature, it's the average across
the sky, but the splitting of the red and blue by the atmosphere
can make it much more complicated when the object being illuminated
can't see all of the sky.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Tony Quinn" wrote in message
...
In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
t.uk...
Lumme that stirred it up - and it was only the RF pollution I mentioned!

A couple of points guys on that long discussion:

Colour Temperature - the CFL is a lot closer to daylight for our
3-colour-sensor eyes than the old incandescent. I daresay people said

Daylight covers a wide range, from dawn (2100K), through to midday
(5600K), through to just before twilight (2100K). Incandescent (2700K)
is a damn good match for daylight at the time we need to start enhancing
light levels for our own comfort at home. What we in effect do in our
homes
is stretch out the early evening period before twilight for which daylight
is 2700K way into the evening/night, both at the colour temperature and
comenserate lumen level (illumination level).

That's interesting because I've found that twilight/dusk are actually very
blue (ie higher colour temperature): if I white-balance my still camera off
a sheet of A4 paper that's outside at dusk, tungsten interiors (real
tungsten or tungsten-balanced CFL) look horrendously red. Using the same
white balance in daylight (either sun or shade) also looks quite orange.

Mortimer wrote:
"Tony Quinn" wrote in message
...
In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
Lumme that stirred it up - and it was only the RF pollution I mentioned!

A couple of points guys on that long discussion:

Colour Temperature - the CFL is a lot closer to daylight for our
3-colour-sensor eyes than the old incandescent. I daresay people said
Daylight covers a wide range, from dawn (2100K), through to midday
(5600K), through to just before twilight (2100K). Incandescent (2700K)
is a damn good match for daylight at the time we need to start enhancing
light levels for our own comfort at home. What we in effect do in our
homes
is stretch out the early evening period before twilight for which daylight
is 2700K way into the evening/night, both at the colour temperature and
comenserate lumen level (illumination level).

That's interesting because I've found that twilight/dusk are actually very
blue (ie higher colour temperature): if I white-balance my still camera off
a sheet of A4 paper that's outside at dusk, tungsten interiors (real
tungsten or tungsten-balanced CFL) look horrendously red. Using the same
white balance in daylight (either sun or shade) also looks quite orange.


Thats true for dusk, but not sunset/sunrise.

Dusk is in any case a time when our own colour receptors start to pack
in: we tend to see grey only.

Even more amusing was taking time exposures by moonlight: the film
itself (pre digital) would give an overall green cast to the picture.

In message , Mortimer
writes
"Tony Quinn" wrote in message
...
In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
et.uk...
Lumme that stirred it up - and it was only the RF pollution I mentioned!

A couple of points guys on that long discussion:

Colour Temperature - the CFL is a lot closer to daylight for our
3-colour-sensor eyes than the old incandescent. I daresay people said

Daylight covers a wide range, from dawn (2100K), through to midday
(5600K), through to just before twilight (2100K). Incandescent (2700K)
is a damn good match for daylight at the time we need to start enhancing
light levels for our own comfort at home. What we in effect do in our
homes
is stretch out the early evening period before twilight for which daylight
is 2700K way into the evening/night, both at the colour temperature and
comenserate lumen level (illumination level).

That's interesting because I've found that twilight/dusk are actually very
blue (ie higher colour temperature): if I white-balance my still camera off
a sheet of A4 paper that's outside at dusk, tungsten interiors (real
tungsten or tungsten-balanced CFL) look horrendously red. Using the same
white balance in daylight (either sun or shade) also looks quite orange.

Correct, they are .. it's the scattered light that does it. The
broadcasters reading this will know that - the d-i-y types probably not.
--
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

In article ,
"Mortimer" writes:
"Tony Quinn" wrote in message
...
In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
et.uk...
Lumme that stirred it up - and it was only the RF pollution I mentioned!

A couple of points guys on that long discussion:

Colour Temperature - the CFL is a lot closer to daylight for our
3-colour-sensor eyes than the old incandescent. I daresay people said

Daylight covers a wide range, from dawn (2100K), through to midday
(5600K), through to just before twilight (2100K). Incandescent (2700K)
is a damn good match for daylight at the time we need to start enhancing
light levels for our own comfort at home. What we in effect do in our
homes
is stretch out the early evening period before twilight for which daylight
is 2700K way into the evening/night, both at the colour temperature and
comenserate lumen level (illumination level).

That's interesting because I've found that twilight/dusk are actually very
blue (ie higher colour temperature): if I white-balance my still camera off
a sheet of A4 paper that's outside at dusk, tungsten interiors (real
tungsten or tungsten-balanced CFL) look horrendously red. Using the same
white balance in daylight (either sun or shade) also looks quite orange.

See my other post about having to average across the sky.
Of course, once the sun has set, you only have the blue sky
as you are in the earth's shaddow (hence my reference to
"just before twilight", or perhaps I should have said, just
before sunset). That is unless you have clouds which can
still see the sun and reflect the direct red path back to
ground (i.e. "red sky at night")!

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Thats true for dusk, but not sunset/sunrise.

Dusk is in any case a time when our own colour receptors start to pack
in: we tend to see grey only.

Even more amusing was taking time exposures by moonlight: the film
itself (pre digital) would give an overall green cast to the picture.


I recall once many years ago waking up in the night, and looking out at
the moonlit garden with the frost on the plants, getting out the tripod,
and taking a picture. When I got it back I spent about 5 minutes
wondering why the heck I'd taken a picture of the garden. All that nice
silvery effect had gone, it looked just like daylight!

Not a touch of green though. I suspect it was Agfa slide film, as I
usually used it because (a) cheaper than prints and (b) the mounts were
nicer than Kodak.

Andy

In article , The Natural
Philosopher writes

Even more amusing was taking time exposures by moonlight: the film
itself (pre digital) would give an overall green cast to the picture.

Reciprocity failure proportionately worse on some layers than others.
AKA "crossed curves", although strictly speaking it's not the latter.
--
SimonM
----- TubeWiz.com -----
Video making/uploading that's easy to use & fun to share
Try it today! (now with DFace blurring)

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Thats true for dusk, but not sunset/sunrise.

Dusk is in any case a time when our own colour receptors start to pack
in: we tend to see grey only.

Even more amusing was taking time exposures by moonlight: the film itself
(pre digital) would give an overall green cast to the picture.


I recall once many years ago waking up in the night, and looking out at
the moonlit garden with the frost on the plants, getting out the tripod,
and taking a picture. When I got it back I spent about 5 minutes
wondering why the heck I'd taken a picture of the garden. All that nice
silvery effect had gone, it looked just like daylight!

Not a touch of green though. I suspect it was Agfa slide film, as I
usually used it because (a) cheaper than prints and (b) the mounts were
nicer than Kodak.

Yes, you need to be careful not to just trust the meter and expose as if it
was daylight. I've been amazed with my digital camera to take pictures at
dusk when it's quite hard to see details with the naked eye but find that a
sufficiently long exposure can result in pictures that could easily have
been taken on an overcast day during normal daylight.

Kodakchrome slide film seems to have a very mucky green cast to the shadows
in under-exposed or night-time pictures. Agfachrome or Kodak Ektachrome are
much better in that respect.

I wonder if some of the colour cast of moonlight pictures was down to the
infamous "reciprocity failure" that film is prone to in very low light,
whereby the normal rule that halving the aperture requires a doubling of
shutter speed no longer works and the three emulsions respond differently to
light. Mind you I once took some very long exposure shots (eg f11 for 2 mins
on 200 ASA) of Christmas lights and other street scenes and didn't see any
colour cast that couldn't simply be attributed to the non-tungsten street
lights.

Arfa Daily wrote:

All of what you say is quite true, but the colour temperature must be taken
in conjunction with the CRI, which for a CFL is less than the ideal of 95 -
100, by quite a margin. It is this shortcoming, rather than the colour
temperature, which gives rise to the 'sick' quality of the light, no matter
how close it is to matching daylight, at any time of the day, in terms of
colour temperature.

This page makes it quite clear why there is such a subjective difference:

http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.c....html#1halidep



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , Mortimer
writes
I wonder if some of the colour cast of moonlight pictures was down to
the infamous "reciprocity failure" that film is prone to in very low
light, whereby the normal rule that halving the aperture requires a
doubling of shutter speed no longer works and the three emulsions
respond differently to light. Mind you I once took some very long
exposure shots (eg f11 for 2 mins on 200 ASA) of Christmas lights and
other street scenes and didn't see any colour cast that couldn't simply
be attributed to the non-tungsten street lights.

I forgot this was cross-posted away from UTB.

It's crossed-curves, not just reciprocity failure. R.F. means you have
to increase long exposure times by a compensation factor (as you say),
but of itself it won't cause colour casts.

The cast comes from a large number of other factors, including the
illumination, temperature of the film, the change in UV content of the
light (often filtered out however), and the fact that RP doesn't affect
the emulsions identically for all of the colours.

If the above is a bit rough, I've forgotten much of it. I need to dig
out my books on colour processes...

--
SimonM
----- TubeWiz.com -----
Video making/uploading that's easy to use & fun to share
Try it today! (now with DFace blurring)

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mortimer wrote:
Even more amusing was taking time exposures by moonlight: the film itself
(pre digital) would give an overall green cast to the picture.

I took a series of these and the processor went mad trying to balance them.

Bill

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:06:07 +0100, Tony Quinn wrote:

Daylight covers a wide range, from dawn (2100K), through to midday
(5600K), through to just before twilight (2100K). Incandescent (2700K)
is a damn good match for daylight at the time we need to start enhancing
light levels for our own comfort at home. What we in effect do in our homes
is stretch out the early evening period before twilight for which daylight
is 2700K way into the evening/night, both at the colour temperature and
comenserate lumen level (illumination level).

Colour Temperatures out of which textbook? I've seen exteriors at 8000K
at which Colour Temperature I needed gain in the camera.

I've seen 'em higher than that. 12000 and even 15000. Of course, it doesn't
last very long.

In message , Paul Ratcliffe
writes
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:06:07 +0100, Tony Quinn wrote:

Daylight covers a wide range, from dawn (2100K), through to midday
(5600K), through to just before twilight (2100K). Incandescent (2700K)
is a damn good match for daylight at the time we need to start enhancing
light levels for our own comfort at home. What we in effect do in our homes
is stretch out the early evening period before twilight for which daylight
is 2700K way into the evening/night, both at the colour temperature and
comenserate lumen level (illumination level).

Colour Temperatures out of which textbook? I've seen exteriors at 8000K
at which Colour Temperature I needed gain in the camera.

I've seen 'em higher than that. 12000 and even 15000. Of course, it doesn't
last very long.

Of course not - I wasn't suggesting otherwise - merely that the OP
didn't have much real world experience of CT variations, as experienced
by the typical OB racks man.
--
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

"Tony Quinn" wrote in message
...
In message , Mortimer
writes
"Tony Quinn" wrote in message
...
In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
news:yqudnTNizuaNHcjVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@eclipse. net.uk...
Lumme that stirred it up - and it was only the RF pollution I
mentioned!

A couple of points guys on that long discussion:

Colour Temperature - the CFL is a lot closer to daylight for our
3-colour-sensor eyes than the old incandescent. I daresay people said

Daylight covers a wide range, from dawn (2100K), through to midday
(5600K), through to just before twilight (2100K). Incandescent (2700K)
is a damn good match for daylight at the time we need to start enhancing
light levels for our own comfort at home. What we in effect do in our
homes
is stretch out the early evening period before twilight for which
daylight
is 2700K way into the evening/night, both at the colour temperature and
comenserate lumen level (illumination level).

That's interesting because I've found that twilight/dusk are actually very
blue (ie higher colour temperature): if I white-balance my still camera
off
a sheet of A4 paper that's outside at dusk, tungsten interiors (real
tungsten or tungsten-balanced CFL) look horrendously red. Using the same
white balance in daylight (either sun or shade) also looks quite orange.

Correct, they are .. it's the scattered light that does it. The
broadcasters reading this will know that - the d-i-y types probably not.

Shadows are always bluish from the scattered "sky" light.
Sunshine gets redder as the sun gets closer to the horizon.
The only time people notice the shadows are blue is in pictures of snow.

Mortimer wrote:
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Thats true for dusk, but not sunset/sunrise.

Dusk is in any case a time when our own colour receptors start to pack
in: we tend to see grey only.

Even more amusing was taking time exposures by moonlight: the film itself
(pre digital) would give an overall green cast to the picture.

I recall once many years ago waking up in the night, and looking out at
the moonlit garden with the frost on the plants, getting out the tripod,
and taking a picture. When I got it back I spent about 5 minutes
wondering why the heck I'd taken a picture of the garden. All that nice
silvery effect had gone, it looked just like daylight!

Not a touch of green though. I suspect it was Agfa slide film, as I
usually used it because (a) cheaper than prints and (b) the mounts were
nicer than Kodak.

Yes, you need to be careful not to just trust the meter and expose as if it
was daylight. I've been amazed with my digital camera to take pictures at
dusk when it's quite hard to see details with the naked eye but find that a
sufficiently long exposure can result in pictures that could easily have
been taken on an overcast day during normal daylight.

Kodakchrome slide film seems to have a very mucky green cast to the shadows
in under-exposed or night-time pictures. Agfachrome or Kodak Ektachrome are
much better in that respect.

I wonder if some of the colour cast of moonlight pictures was down to the
infamous "reciprocity failure" that film is prone to in very low light,
whereby the normal rule that halving the aperture requires a doubling of
shutter speed no longer works and the three emulsions respond differently to
light. Mind you I once took some very long exposure shots (eg f11 for 2 mins
on 200 ASA) of Christmas lights and other street scenes and didn't see any
colour cast that couldn't simply be attributed to the non-tungsten street
lights.


Yes, it was reciprocity failure. It would have been Fuji 400 negative film.

I remember also stopping to take a snap shot of an oil tanker against
the sunset in Scapa Flow. There of us took it - two with 'point and
shoots' and me with a 200mm lens, and a lot of care over the exposure.
Their shots looked dull. Mine is a riot of sepia and orange. Ive still
got the print hanging on the wall.

Bill Wright wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mortimer wrote:
Even more amusing was taking time exposures by moonlight: the film itself
(pre digital) would give an overall green cast to the picture.

I took a series of these and the processor went mad trying to balance them.

Bill


Hah. I used up a ten year old slide film in a camera on holiday.
Digitized the result and spent an intersting couple of hours whacking
out the green.

Tony Quinn wrote:

Of course not - I wasn't suggesting otherwise - merely that the OP
didn't have much real world experience of CT variations, as experienced
by the typical OB racks man.

waves

Well I wouldn't - especially as the title points to the original post
being about interference at a few hundred MHz, which is a *long* way
beyond the red end of *my* vision...

I just want to take pictures. I want them to look like I saw them. I
know our eyes are rubbish, and so our cameras are rubbish too - but
after ... umm.. I reckon well over 5 years worth of staring at CRT and
LCD displays my colour vision is possibly a bit off.

Especially as women have better colour vision anyway

Andy

(Men have better night vision. Picking fruit vs hunting rabbits?)

Andy Champ wrote:

(Men have better night vision. Picking fruit vs hunting rabbits?)

****ing on target at 3am, without having to put the bathroom light on ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Mark Carver wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:


(Men have better night vision. Picking fruit vs hunting rabbits?)


****ing on target at 3am, without having to put the bathroom light on ?

IKWYM. Doesn't the light hurt the eyes if you do switch it on. :-(
I have good night vision and it gets spoiled by cars at both night and
day, who have badly aligned head lights, or fog lamps. Do drivers assume
that their fog lamps are driving lights, because they are not yellow? On
the same subject, I get blinded by the number of drivers that are using
head lights during the day and there is nothing better to distract you,
when they start flashing their lights in your rear view mirror as they
bounce along the road. As for motorcycles, why do they drive round using
full beam? That really gives me black spots in my vision. I've started
to put mine on now, when they approach me.

Mad as a wasp

Dave

Dave wrote in


Mark Carver wrote:
snip

IKWYM. Doesn't the light hurt the eyes if you do switch it on. :-(
I have good night vision and it gets spoiled by cars at both night and
day, who have badly aligned head lights, or fog lamps. Do drivers
assume that their fog lamps are driving lights, because they are not
yellow?

I think you're confusing fog lamps with those really cool lights placed low
down at the front of the car, making both car and driver look dead stylish.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

"PeterMcC" wrote in message
...
snip

I think you're confusing fog lamps with those really cool lights
placed low
down at the front of the car, making both car and driver look dead
stylish.


I think the word you were looking for was "stupid" - making both car
and driver look dead stupid.....

Now if I was a troll I would cross-post this to the car modification
group! :~o

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:48:55 +0100, Dave
wrote:

Mark Carver wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:


(Men have better night vision. Picking fruit vs hunting rabbits?)


****ing on target at 3am, without having to put the bathroom light on ?

IKWYM. Doesn't the light hurt the eyes if you do switch it on. :-(
I have good night vision and it gets spoiled by cars at both night and
day, who have badly aligned head lights, or fog lamps. Do drivers assume
that their fog lamps are driving lights, because they are not yellow? On
the same subject, I get blinded by the number of drivers that are using
head lights during the day and there is nothing better to distract you,
when they start flashing their lights in your rear view mirror as they
bounce along the road. As for motorcycles, why do they drive round using
full beam? That really gives me black spots in my vision. I've started
to put mine on now, when they approach me.

AFAIK you can't buy a motorcycle in the UK where you can switch the
headlights off! I don't know anyone who rides around on full beam.

You won't like the latest EU proposals - they want compulsory daytime
running lights for all motor vehicles.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Mark wrote:

You won't like the latest EU proposals - they want compulsory daytime
running lights for all motor vehicles.


Something like a diffuse light at the corners of a vehicle might well be
a good idea. The problems of using headlamps during the day seem to me
to be due to misuse - they were not designed to make the vehicle more
visible but for the driver to be able to see.

On a sunny summer day, going from bright into heavily shaded roads, it
can be difficult to see dark vehicles.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Mark Carver wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:


(Men have better night vision. Picking fruit vs hunting rabbits?)


****ing on target at 3am, without having to put the bathroom light on ?

IKWYM. Doesn't the light hurt the eyes if you do switch it on. :-(
I have good night vision and it gets spoiled by cars at both night and
day, who have badly aligned head lights, or fog lamps. Do drivers assume
that their fog lamps are driving lights, because they are not yellow? On
the same subject, I get blinded by the number of drivers that are using
head lights during the day and there is nothing better to distract you,
when they start flashing their lights in your rear view mirror as they
bounce along the road. As for motorcycles, why do they drive round using
full beam? That really gives me black spots in my vision. I've started to
put mine on now, when they approach me.

I've no problem with motorbikes using headlights during the day - anything
that makes them more visible as they overtake or when their outline is
masked by a large vehicle behind them has got to be a good thing.

The lights that really knacker my vision are rear (red) fog lights when I'm
travelling right behind and brake lights kept permanently on when drivers
are stationary in a queue of traffic. Why can't people use ther handbrake
rather than footbrake when they are stopped at traffic lights?

In article , Mortimer
writes
and brake lights kept permanently on when drivers are stationary in a
queue of traffic. Why can't people use ther handbrake rather than
footbrake when they are stopped at traffic lights?

Blame Volvo and the EU: one introduced them, the other mandated them.
I doubt there's a shred of evidence that high-mounted central brake
lights are a net safety improvement.

Incidentally, if you think it's bad here, North America is dreadful, as
most cars are autos and people sit for minutes at a time with a foot on
the brake pedal, at traffic lights.



--
SimonM
----- TubeWiz.com -----
Video making/uploading that's easy to use & fun to share
Try it today! (now with DFace blurring)

"SpamTrapSeeSig" wrote in message
.. .
snip

Blame Volvo and the EU: one introduced them, the other mandated
them.
I doubt there's a shred of evidence that high-mounted central brake
lights are a net safety improvement.


As a sound engineer and anti EU person, you are of course entitled to
your opinion....

SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
In article , Mortimer
writes
and brake lights kept permanently on when drivers are stationary in a
queue of traffic. Why can't people use ther handbrake rather than
footbrake when they are stopped at traffic lights?

Blame Volvo and the EU: one introduced them, the other mandated them.
I doubt there's a shred of evidence that high-mounted central brake
lights are a net safety improvement.


I think actually they were introduced because there was a lot of evidence.


Incidentally, if you think it's bad here, North America is dreadful, as
most cars are autos and people sit for minutes at a time with a foot on
the brake pedal, at traffic lights.


Doesn't bother me.

"SpamTrapSeeSig" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Mortimer
writes
and brake lights kept permanently on when drivers are stationary in a
queue of traffic. Why can't people use ther handbrake rather than
footbrake when they are stopped at traffic lights?

Blame Volvo and the EU: one introduced them, the other mandated them.
I doubt there's a shred of evidence that high-mounted central brake lights
are a net safety improvement.

Actually it's the low-level brake lights that are the real problem; the
high-level central one can be hidden by a suitably-placed sun-visor!

Another thing that offends my sense of symmetry, though it's not distracting
in itself, is the trend for some modern cars to have just one rear fog light
and one reversing light. The last few cars that I have owned (VW Golf and
Peugeot 306) had two bulb-holders and "lenses" for the fog lights but only
had a bulb fitted on one side - luckily it was easy to fit the missing bulb.

Incidentally, if you think it's bad here, North America is dreadful, as
most cars are autos and people sit for minutes at a time with a foot on
the brake pedal, at traffic lights.

Exactly. Are people too lazy to apply the handbrake and/or shift the lever
into neutral or park? Evidently they are. When I was taught to drive, the
instructor drilled into me the need to put the car in neutral (or park or
neutral for an auto, though he was very scathing about automatic
transmissions!) and to apply the handbrake so I could avoid blinding the car
behind with my brake lights, and that has stayed with me 25 years later.
Paradoxically I understand that some recent automatic transmissions should
not be left in neutral at traffic lights because the cooling oil doesn't
circulate properly, which makes you wonder a) why they have a neutral
setting, and b) why this design flaw hasn't been fixed.

"Mortimer" wrote in message
et...

snip
When I was taught to drive,

Liar, you obviously were not taught to drive, you might have been
taught how to operate a motor vehicle but that is not driving), who in
their right minds looks directly at any light source (especially when
stationary). Sorry but your driving ability is the problem here and
not those you are following.

Anyway, the real problem is not illuminated lights whilst stationary
but lights that should not be illuminated whilst moving for the road
conditions, such as rear fog lights that mask (or cause a distraction
from) the more important lights such as brake lights.

In article , ":Jerry:"
writes

"SpamTrapSeeSig" wrote in message
. ..
snip

Blame Volvo and the EU: one introduced them, the other mandated
them.
I doubt there's a shred of evidence that high-mounted central brake
lights are a net safety improvement.


As a sound engineer and anti EU person, you are of course entitled to
your opinion....

Indeed so. But I don't let dogma get in the way of facts.

The escalating 'arms race' of vehicle lighting is down to EU regulation,
which has recently also mandated the use of permanent dipped headlights
(IIRC on all vehicles made after 2010 or 2012). Statistically speaking,
one effect of this will be to increase motorcyclist fatalities, or so
we're told, not to mention energy waste, etc.

These are the same chappies that mandated 'low energy' lightbulbs.

--
SimonM
----- TubeWiz.com -----
Video making/uploading that's easy to use & fun to share
Try it today! (now with DFace blurring)

In article , The Natural
Philosopher writes

Incidentally, if you think it's bad here, North America is dreadful,
as most cars are autos and people sit for minutes at a time with a
foot on the brake pedal, at traffic lights.


Doesn't bother me.

It ruins night vision if you're stuck in a traffic queue, and it is much
worse in the USA than here, because of automatic boxes.

--
SimonM
----- TubeWiz.com -----
Video making/uploading that's easy to use & fun to share
Try it today! (now with DFace blurring)

In article , Mortimer
writes
"SpamTrapSeeSig" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Mortimer
writes
and brake lights kept permanently on when drivers are stationary in a
queue of traffic. Why can't people use ther handbrake rather than
footbrake when they are stopped at traffic lights?

Blame Volvo and the EU: one introduced them, the other mandated them.
I doubt there's a shred of evidence that high-mounted central brake lights
are a net safety improvement.

Actually it's the low-level brake lights that are the real problem; the
high-level central one can be hidden by a suitably-placed sun-visor!

Another thing that offends my sense of symmetry, though it's not distracting
in itself, is the trend for some modern cars to have just one rear fog light
and one reversing light. The last few cars that I have owned (VW Golf and
Peugeot 306) had two bulb-holders and "lenses" for the fog lights but only
had a bulb fitted on one side - luckily it was easy to fit the missing bulb.

Incidentally, if you think it's bad here, North America is dreadful, as
most cars are autos and people sit for minutes at a time with a foot on
the brake pedal, at traffic lights.

Exactly. Are people too lazy to apply the handbrake and/or shift the lever
into neutral or park? Evidently they are. When I was taught to drive, the
instructor drilled into me the need to put the car in neutral (or park or
neutral for an auto, though he was very scathing about automatic
transmissions!) and to apply the handbrake so I could avoid blinding the car
behind with my brake lights, and that has stayed with me 25 years later.
Paradoxically I understand that some recent automatic transmissions should
not be left in neutral at traffic lights because the cooling oil doesn't
circulate properly, which makes you wonder a) why they have a neutral
setting, and b) why this design flaw hasn't been fixed.

On many US cars that I've driven the parking brake has been a ratchet
foot pedal. 'Park' has other implications too. I don't think you could
safely use it at the lights. Even if the parking brake is a handbrake,
it's very hard to use it on the road without a clutch, as you can't set
the revs against it, etc.

I hate automatic cars, but I've never managed to hire a manual, despite
being told in several locations that they were available.

--
SimonM
----- TubeWiz.com -----
Video making/uploading that's easy to use & fun to share
Try it today! (now with DFace blurring)

"SpamTrapSeeSig" wrote in message
.. .
In article , ":Jerry:"
writes

"SpamTrapSeeSig" wrote in message
...
snip

Blame Volvo and the EU: one introduced them, the other mandated
them.
I doubt there's a shred of evidence that high-mounted central
brake
lights are a net safety improvement.


As a sound engineer and anti EU person, you are of course entitled
to
your opinion....

Indeed so. But I don't let dogma get in the way of facts.

The escalating 'arms race' of vehicle lighting is down to EU
regulation,

Come on, how many people remember 'old Cyclops' or the combined
tail/brake light (that is a single filament bulb that was used for
*both* brake and tail light)? My point, lighting regs have been
changing/evolving since before the EU (or even the EEC and before), so
basically what you are saying is, you don't mind change as long as
it's not a pan EU change - go figure...

which has recently also mandated the use of permanent dipped
headlights (IIRC on all vehicles made after 2010 or 2012).
Statistically speaking, one effect of this will be to increase
motorcyclist fatalities, or so we're told, not to mention energy
waste, etc.

People probably said the same things when traficators were
superseded...

"Mortimer" wrote in message
...


The lights that really knacker my vision are rear (red) fog lights when
I'm travelling right behind and brake lights kept permanently on when
drivers are stationary in a queue of traffic. Why can't people use ther
handbrake rather than footbrake when they are stopped at traffic lights?

Its just more poor driving.
If you were taught by a proper instructor you would use your handbrake.
Its the ones that think I have passed my test.. now I can start to drive
that cause most of the problems as they don't have a clue as to why the
rules are there.

"SpamTrapSeeSig" wrote in message
.. .
snip

On many US cars that I've driven the parking brake has been a
ratchet foot pedal. 'Park' has other implications too. I don't think
you could safely use it at the lights. Even if the parking brake is
a handbrake, it's very hard to use it on the road without a clutch,
as you can't set the revs against it, etc.

I hate automatic cars, snip

Sounds like you need to learn to drive then, any fool can drive an
automatic, that's why people who take their test in an automatic are
only licensed to drive automatics...

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Mortimer" wrote in message
et...

snip
When I was taught to drive,

Liar, you obviously were not taught to drive, you might have been taught
how to operate a motor vehicle but that is not driving), who in their
right minds looks directly at any light source (especially when
stationary). Sorry but your driving ability is the problem here and not
those you are following.

You try not to look at the bright red lights staring you in the face, so you
cover them with the sun visor or you close your eyes. But you also need to
be aware of the instant that the brake lights go out because that's the time
that you'll probably want to prepare to set off.