David,
first, relax.
David Brodbeck wrote:
> ernest breakfield wrote:
> > in general, you seem to be contradicting yourself WRT where you stand
> > on use of lights;
> > you complained headlights were too "dazzling" but suggest using them
> > instead of
> > running(/"parking") lights,...
>
> Where did I say that? My complaint was that using fogs *along with*
> headlights was unnecessarily dazzling, if the goal is simply to make
> yourself visible. Just because I believe DRLs are beneficial doesn't
> mean I think that if a little is good, more is better.
you wrote:
"I don't see how running with fog lights will make your car any more
visible to other motorists than having just your headlights on. Even
when aimed properly, they still create another bright point source of
light to dazzle oncoming drivers."
"another" means 'one more', as in 'in addition to', implying that *both*
the headlights and
the fogs are "dazzling". if you meant something other than what you wrote,
you're welcome to
clarify.
back to the point; since fog lights are additional light sources and aimed
lower than
headlights, fogs shouldn't cause any more "dazzle", and use of them does help
increase
conspicuity (especially those of a different color). i could see if i can find
references to the
studies again if you're interested in a discussion instead of an argument, but
it's not new
information.
note: just to clarify, it seems necessary to point out that while it may be
a bit much of me
to expect it, for the sake of this discussion i am presuming that the lights
we're discussing are
aimed properly. of course, most any light can be misused to cause a problem.
> > and also seem to contrarily claim both that
> > running(/"parking") lights in the daytime are "too dim to be very attention
> > getting", but
> > that you believe people might be confused by them; how could they be
> > confused if they're
> > not getting their attention?
> >
>
> I didn't say *I* believed people might be confused by them. I said I
> thought that was the rationale behind the law prohibiting their use
> while driving.
Actually, that's exactly what you said:
you wrote:
"I believe this is because it could cause confusion about whether your car is
in motion or
parked."
did you mean to say something other than what you actually wrote? please
feel free to
clarify.
> You seem more interested in arguing with some imaginary version of what
> I said than with what I've actually said.
i'm just reading what you wrote; are you?
if you're interested in a discussion or even just a sharing of opinions and
simply meant to
say something other than what you actually wrote, i'd welcome you to clarify. i
understand that
we all don't always necessarily say exactly what we mean the first try, and you
should feel free
to make it clear what you actually meant.
if you prefer an argument, i would invite you to look elsewhere... but
before you start
throwing stones, i would suggest that you might want to at least pay attention
to what's actually
being said (including/especially to what *you're* writing) or you're likely to
wind up even more
frustrated.
regards,
e
