Daylight Running Lights
 

On 11/24/2014 7:06 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:39:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 22.11.2014 16:45, schrieb Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher:

Nobody seems to have a good reason NOT to have daylight running lights:

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8071521_day...ng-lights.html

What about the simple reason that the field tests in Germany (Rügen
Island introduced daylight running lights compared to neighboring
districts that did not pilot daylight running lights) and in Austria
have clearly shown that daylight running lights have *NO EFFECT
WHATSOEVER* on the number or severity of accidents?

Strange that. In Thailand they made it illegal to ride a motorcycle
without turning on the head light and the next year announced that
motorcycle accidents were down, attributed to the always on bike light
law.
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb


John could you write me please? Your address as shown is
invalid.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Daylight Running Lights
 

On 11/25/2014 7:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/24/2014 7:06 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:39:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 22.11.2014 16:45, schrieb Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Philosopher:

Nobody seems to have a good reason NOT to have daylight running lights:

Read more :
http://www.ehow.com/info_8071521_day...ng-lights.html

What about the simple reason that the field tests in Germany (Rügen
Island introduced daylight running lights compared to neighboring
districts that did not pilot daylight running lights) and in Austria
have clearly shown that daylight running lights have *NO EFFECT
WHATSOEVER* on the number or severity of accidents?

Strange that. In Thailand they made it illegal to ride a motorcycle
without turning on the head light and the next year announced that
motorcycle accidents were down, attributed to the always on bike light
law.
--
cheers,


I have driven in Thailand (Phuket to Krabi to Ao Nang) as well as in Mae
Hong Son. I can see why DRLs would help. The roads are so poor near the
edges that people drive down the middle where there is the most intact
pavement then veer out of the way when they encounter oncoming traffic.

Daylight Running Lights
 

strobes are excellent... a few strobes...the current situation. if there were more strobes maybe negative.

I drove down to naples this mornig at 4AM for a parking spot. Nice drive, fresh gulf breeze , no traffic. Security light show from upper end sales lots. Draiing the plaent.

A solid drive thru strip mall civ where 15 years ago, a swamp.

Coming back after noon, many cars with lights on driving south on a 3 lane/6 lane with 2 turn lanes a times in the old BLVD style where yes there are unseen jughandles.

The lights help. Help what ?

Not much. A jughandle on the median turns lights away from your oncoming so the next move is theirs

With that traffic a turn signal is useless

Conclusion ? the Blvd/median design with random jug handles is unsuitable for modern traffic at 50 mph ( Texas sometimes 60)

But out in the prairie lights are useful as we go to sleep.

'Same for bike path strobes. bike to bike.

The oncoming is asleep. Lights activate the oncoming's nervous systems.

RADAR activation has potential. For the prairie, wherever this may be. Radar light activation with a closing rate warning device. Almost statutory in public gains...like disc brakes and rear roll bars..then ABS

Daylight Running Lights
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:12:33 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/24/2014 7:06 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:39:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 22.11.2014 16:45, schrieb Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher:

Nobody seems to have a good reason NOT to have daylight running lights:

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8071521_day...ng-lights.html

What about the simple reason that the field tests in Germany (Rügen
Island introduced daylight running lights compared to neighboring
districts that did not pilot daylight running lights) and in Austria
have clearly shown that daylight running lights have *NO EFFECT
WHATSOEVER* on the number or severity of accidents?

Strange that. In Thailand they made it illegal to ride a motorcycle
without turning on the head light and the next year announced that
motorcycle accidents were down, attributed to the always on bike light
law.
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb


John co
Would you write me please? Your address as shown is
invalid.

Fake address = attempt to limit spam. Try

--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

Daylight Running Lights
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:54:25 -0800, sms
wrote:

On 11/25/2014 7:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/24/2014 7:06 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:39:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 22.11.2014 16:45, schrieb Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Philosopher:

Nobody seems to have a good reason NOT to have daylight running lights:

Read more :
http://www.ehow.com/info_8071521_day...ng-lights.html

What about the simple reason that the field tests in Germany (Rügen
Island introduced daylight running lights compared to neighboring
districts that did not pilot daylight running lights) and in Austria
have clearly shown that daylight running lights have *NO EFFECT
WHATSOEVER* on the number or severity of accidents?

Strange that. In Thailand they made it illegal to ride a motorcycle
without turning on the head light and the next year announced that
motorcycle accidents were down, attributed to the always on bike light
law.
--
cheers,


I have driven in Thailand (Phuket to Krabi to Ao Nang) as well as in Mae
Hong Son. I can see why DRLs would help. The roads are so poor near the
edges that people drive down the middle where there is the most intact
pavement then veer out of the way when they encounter oncoming traffic.

How many years ago was that? The road from Phuket to Krabi was a good
wide black-top road a year ago, 4 lanes in some places.

Mae Hong Son? I've never been there, but the road from Bangkok to
Chaing Mai is all four, or more, lane isn't it?

--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

Daylight Running Lights
 

On 26/11/14 13:17, John D. Slocomb wrote:

Fake address = attempt to limit spam. Try



'b' or 'd'?

--
JS

Daylight Running Lights
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:33:20 +1100, James
wrote:

On 26/11/14 13:17, John D. Slocomb wrote:

Fake address = attempt to limit spam. Try



'b' or 'd'?

"b", the Signature is incorrect.

I'm probably paranoid but I get reams of spam and I'm trying to
eliminate some of it, or at least reduce the volume, and I'm convinced
that a certain amount comes from scanned Usenet messages.

I've changed the Signature block here and I'll if it results in any
added offers for good things like free loans, or maybe a guy in
Nigeria offering me a hundred million to help him get his money out of
the country.
--
cheers,

John B.Slocomb

Daylight Running Lights
 

For your reference, records indicate that
John B. Slocomb wrote:

I'm probably paranoid but I get reams of spam and I'm trying to
eliminate some of it, or at least reduce the volume, and I'm convinced
that a certain amount comes from scanned Usenet messages.

A bit off topic, but you’re right. I use specific tracking addresses to
combat abuse, so know for a fact that Usenet is still a source. However,
it is likely a drop in the bucket compared to other places that might
compromise your address. Which is to say, it sometimes takes *months*
before an address I use here gets picked up by a spammer, and the result
is barely a trickle (e.g., 1 spam/week) for however long it is before I
get fed up and expire the address.

The real problem you’re going to have is with an “old� address that you
never change. Over time, it gets passed around and added to more and
more lists that more and more spammers use. If you want better control
of a “published� email, consider trying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Address_tags

I essentially use an extreme form of that which allows me to keep the
message from even leaving the spammer’s server.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

Daylight Running Lights
 

On 26/11/14 22:16, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:33:20 +1100, James
wrote:

On 26/11/14 13:17, John D. Slocomb wrote:

Fake address = attempt to limit spam. Try



'b' or 'd'?

"b", the Signature is incorrect.

I'm probably paranoid but I get reams of spam and I'm trying to
eliminate some of it, or at least reduce the volume, and I'm convinced
that a certain amount comes from scanned Usenet messages.

I've changed the Signature block here and I'll if it results in any
added offers for good things like free loans, or maybe a guy in
Nigeria offering me a hundred million to help him get his money out of
the country.

Interesting. You can see my email addr. Not hidden. Thunderbird and
Google seem to get rid of 90% of the spam. Results in me emptying the
spam folder once a day, of about 3-5 emails.

--
JS

Daylight Running Lights
 

On 11/26/2014 4:06 PM, James wrote:
On 26/11/14 22:16, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:33:20 +1100, James
wrote:

On 26/11/14 13:17, John D. Slocomb wrote:

Fake address = attempt to limit spam. Try



'b' or 'd'?

"b", the Signature is incorrect.

I'm probably paranoid but I get reams of spam and I'm trying to
eliminate some of it, or at least reduce the volume, and I'm convinced
that a certain amount comes from scanned Usenet messages.

I've changed the Signature block here and I'll if it results in any
added offers for good things like free loans, or maybe a guy in
Nigeria offering me a hundred million to help him get his money out of
the country.

Interesting. You can see my email addr. Not hidden. Thunderbird and
Google seem to get rid of 90% of the spam. Results in me emptying the
spam folder once a day, of about 3-5 emails.



Maybe this group doesn't get scanned that much. I don't use my real
email when posting because I was getting bombed by a lot of spam. I did
a test with a separate address and it definitely has something to do
with usenet. Maybe you've just been lucky.