David,
David Brodbeck wrote:
> ernest breakfield wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> Regardless of where they're aimed, they still represent two more
> white-hot bulb filaments, which oncoming drivers have to look at.
actually, any *decent* light has a shield that prevents you from seeing the
filament, and
(again, assuming a quality lamp) the light emanating from that lamp should be
controlled such
that the light is cast onto the ground. no driver should never be able to see
the filament. any
decent Fog Lamp has a beam pattern that's already even shorter and lower than
the Low Beam and
should make it even less of an issue than even the standard Low Beams.
of course, more simply, just don't look at the silly things! ;-p
> That
> was my point. Many fog lights are quite bright indeed; my J.C. Whitney
> catalog lists 55 watt models, which makes them as bright as a standard
> low-beam headlamp.
heh, this may be one of the reasons for our different perspectives; i
confess i wouldn't
expect that anything out of a JC Sh*tney catalog could qualify as an example of
a quality
lamp. ;-)
> I think having 220 watts of lights on is an
> excessive amount of glare if your goal is simply to make yourself
> visible. Even if they're aimed properly, the bulbs still create a very
> bright sight picture for oncoming drivers.
let's clarify again; the key is the beam pattern, not the wattage.
i've got more light wattage running full-time from larger (6.25" dia.)
lamps on my
motorcycle, and they're aimed so they're not an issue to oncoming traffic.
sadly it's still not
enough to keep people from "not seeing" me. i've also run significantly hotter
bulbs in H4 lamps
and they cast much less glare than low/stock quality DOT 35W low beams.
decent quality lamps cast their light towards the ground (where it's
supposed to be), and
wouldn't be found objectionable by any standard i would consider reasonable.
i would wholeheartedly agree that there are far too many poor-quailty lamps
out there on
vehicles of all makes and price points, but the issue isn't the power, it's the
beam pattern
control.
> While this isn't going to
> blind anyone during the day, it's unnecessary, and the same person will
> probably run them constantly at night as well, where it's much more
> troublesome.
conjecture and/or already addressed; no further comment.
> To make matters worse, some of these lights are tinted
> blue, which creates even more scattering and glare than a normal headlamp.
i completely agree; the misguided perception that blue lights are somehow
better seems to be
related to the advent of the early HIDs, which were imitated with cheap copies
that pushed the
blue tint as somehow being more effective, or in too many cases, just a matter
of style.
it would appear many of the people using these don't know/care that the
blue light emanating
from their lamps may give them the impression of being brighter, but in
actuality probably
impairs their visual acuity. (doesn't anyone remember how Blue-Blocker
sunglasses would help
improve detail? now people are paying extra to accessorize their vehicles with
blue light...
does anyone else find this odd?)
> > 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're taking me out of context. That was part of a discussion about
> why some states have laws prohibiting such things. But you seem more
> interested in finding nits to pick than in debating the actual topic at
> hand.
you might need to go back and look at what you sent; you posted that in the
context of:
"states where it's illegal to drive with only your parking lights on...",
which you later said:
"I didn't say *I* believed people might be confused by them. I said I thought
that was the
rationale behind the law".
what you posted seemed to be exactly what you later said you didn't say;
that's why i
invited you to clarify your apparent contradiction. clarification with the
intent of better
understand each other isn't usually a big deal for most people i deal with in a
rational
discussion.
i was just trying to have a conversation on a topic of mutual interest; yet
somehow you seem
to find my paying attention to what you actually said and asking for
clarification to avoid
misunderstanding as justification for your being rude. frankly, it would appear
you're incapable
and/or disinterested in having the sort of discussion i'd hoped.
your manner has made it much less likely i'd be interested in paying
attention to you any
longer, so we shouldn't have any problem.
cheers!
e
