tjsmedley@watmum.UUCP (Trevor J. Smedley) (05/16/86)
>>I hope you are aware that certain vehicles such as motorcycles come >>from the manufacturer with headlights on whenever the engine is >>running. > >Yes, this is true. Yet another Silly Law Our Government Has Seen Fit >To Thrust Upon Us. This is ***NOT*** a silly law. I have come close to killing people riding bikes with the headlight off. Not on purpose, but simply because they were for all practical purposes invisible. I have yet to come close to a bike with the light on. I actually used to put my high beam on when I was riding on bright sunny days. It's unlikely that you'll run into someone that you're swearing at (at least by accident :-)
ebh@cord.UUCP (05/19/86)
In article <496@watmum.UUCP> tjsmedley@watmum.UUCP (Trevor J. Smedley) writes: >>>I hope you are aware that certain vehicles such as motorcycles come >>>from the manufacturer with headlights on whenever the engine is >>>running. >> >>Yes, this is true. Yet another Silly Law Our Government Has Seen Fit >>To Thrust Upon Us. > >This is ***NOT*** a silly law. >I have yet to come close to a bike with the light on. Law or not, I agree with Trevor. You are so much more visible with your light on than not, that having it on all the time is a feature, not a bug. Besides, even if it is a law, at least it costs almost nothing to implement, unlike catalytic converters, etc. Also, my rule of thumb for my car is "wipers on, lights on". -Ed Horch {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra}!cord!ebh
mazlack@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Lawrence J. Mazlack) (05/19/86)
>>>I hope you are aware that certain vehicles such as motorcycles come >>>from the manufacturer with headlights on whenever the engine is >>>running. >> >>Yes, this is true. Yet another Silly Law Our Government Has Seen Fit >>To Thrust Upon Us. > >This is ***NOT*** a silly law. I have come close to killing people >riding bikes with the headlight off. Not on purpose, but simply >because they were for all practical purposes invisible. .... Agreed. It really helps your visibility. I have been riding bikes for over years and many places - Alaska, all of Europe, most of central asia (Turkey, Iran, Afganistan, etc) and I believe completely. The only ill effects are that some generators/alternators are not robust enough and it hurts when starting with marginal batteries. (I run a BMW 1000cc bike and they have really crummy batteries - good for about 18 months.) Larry Mazlack mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu
curry@nsc.UUCP (05/20/86)
>>silly law >not silly law I must beg to differ on this one. First of all I personally find it a silly law because it puts the burden of the activity on the victim. Second of all while it is true that the headlight being on does improve the distance that any vehicle is noticed at to cross traffic, the improvement does not take unsafe to safe but only close to safer. The only times that I have seen the headlight be a factor was because the light through off the drivers depth perception and they though I was closer than I was. The danger of the lights on law is that one, the tail light is also on meaning a dangers drop in the driver behind being able to perceive of the brake light being on and two it gives the driver failing to yield an extra excuse to rationalize away the carelessness. I seldom get angry over a close call because I have them in my car as well. Those close calls are because the other guy misjudges the speed or they look, wait for the decision process, and then go, after the oncoming traffic has arrived. I wouldn't mind the European system. Their bikes have a three position switch; Off-headlight (or city light)-all lights. My last objection to making things like lights on a law is that what happens in case of a mechanical failure. In a car, you might get a repair order to fix it but it is legal to drive to get it fixed. With the headlight law, it is illegal to drive to get it fixed. Actually, my last-last objection is that not all states have the law. Before the manufacturers jumped in anticipation of the law, the states with lights on law had higher accident and death rates than states without.
edg@micropro.UUCP (05/20/86)
In article <256@cord.UUCP> ebh@cord.UUCP (59453-Ed Horch) writes: >Law or not, I agree with Trevor. You are so much more visible with >your light on than not, that having it on all the time is a feature, >not a bug. Besides, even if it is a law, at least it costs almost >nothing to implement, unlike catalytic converters, etc. >Also, my rule of thumb for my car is "wipers on, lights on". >-Ed Horch {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra}!cord!ebh I agree with Ed regarding both car and bike. I like the feature of the bike that keeps me from leaving the light on and draining the battery. I wish my car worked approximately the same way. I want to get a big white fairing to augment my headlight and make me more visible (a) in peoples mirrors and (b) to cross traffic. -edg -- Ed Greenberg | {hplabs,glacier}!well!micropro!edg MicroPro International Corp. | {ucbvax,decwrl}!dual!micropro!edg San Rafael, California | {lll-crg,ptsfa}!micropro!edg
howard@sfsup.UUCP (H.M.Moskovitz) (05/21/86)
> >> > >>Yes, this is true. Yet another Silly Law Our Government Has Seen Fit > >>To Thrust Upon Us. > > > >This is ***NOT*** a silly law. I have come close to killing people > >riding bikes with the headlight off. Not on purpose, but simply > >because they were for all practical purposes invisible. .... > > Agreed. It really helps your visibility. I have been riding bikes I was browsing through the New Jersey State Motorcycle Operator Manual and it states that use of a headlight during the day can increase a rider's visibility up to one and one-half times (1.5X). I find that a significant increase. In fact I would use a headlight modulator on to of that (a past discussion on net.cycle) and would think that would increase the visibility to 2X. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Moskovitz AT&T Info. Systems attunix!howard