blinded by light

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 15:51:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/30/2019 2:20 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:02:05 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Interesting post!
- Frank Krygowski

Y'er welcome. Some more reading of interest. Like I said, this is
nothing new and has been demonstrated that it works repeatedly. The
problem is dealing with upgrading millions of existing headlights. The
best that can be done is use them on new cars.

More generally, the problem of headlight (etc.) glare could be addressed
in other ways. One would be to mandate that all headlights be mounted at
more or less the same height. Here I'm speaking about pickup trucks,
SUVs and other commercial trucks that put headlights at double or more
the height of car headlights. Those put car driver's eyes in the hot
part of the beam.

Another strategy would be to apply the same cutoff standards to all
auxiliary driving lights. I've seen ones that appear to be factory
original but glare almost as much as high beam headlights. And of
course, there's the idiot pickup-driving contingent that goes out of its
way to buy MFFY lights of all descriptions. Make it so they can't
(easily) buy blinding lights just for fun.

Re headlight height, I'm fairly sure there is, or was, some sort of
standard regarding headlight height as I remember seeing home built
sports cars with their head lights up on posts, said to make them the
legal height.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:52:24 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:00:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

As the driver who appeared sound asleep in his self driven car
(recently highlighted here) demonstrates , "rely on the
intelligence of the operator" may not be the best path to take.

Yep. The "nut that holds the wheel" tends to be the major problem.
For every advance in automation, safety devices, and product liability
litigation, there is an equal advance in operator idiocy, inattention,
product abuse, and assumption of safety. I suspect the biggest
problem is that Joe Sixpack tends to believe the manufacturers claims,
instead of his own common sense. Of course, the early adopters tend
to be those with more money than common sense, so disasters are
probably inevitable. Until science invents an evolution accelerator,
we are faced with an apparently endless supply of better idiots.

In fact, as I think Frank will testify, industrial safety is largely
concerned with eliminating "reliance on the intelligence of the
operator" :-)

As usual, I beg to differ. I covered this in a previous rant about
the INCREASE in accidents that appeared after safety interlocks were
installed on a terminal to wire crimping machine at a former employer.
Before the safety interlocks were installed, the operators were all
trained and told that the machine will chop off a hand or several
fingers if they get anywhere near the moving parts. There were no
accidents for about 5 years of operation. After OSHA demanded that
the machine be retrofitted with hand safety interlocks, accidents
started to appear. Fortunately, none resulted in the loss of any
fingers, but did produce some impressive "pinch" injuries caused by
the clear plastic safety shields.

The problem was that with the safety interlocks, the operators felt
like they were safe. That gave them the license to do some stupid
things, which resulted in the injuries. So, which is better? To
terrorize the operator with visions of injuries if they screw up, or
to have them half-asleep assuming that they would be safe no matter
what they do wrong? The current fashion in the latter, but I prefer
the former.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 06:11:25 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 05:43:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:15:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 20:57:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:13:05 +0700, John B.
wrote:

And, I might add, eliminate the complaints of "lights in my eyes".

There's a better and easier way that has been proposed many times and
rejected every time. Install a horizontally polarizing screen over
all headlights, and require riders, drivers, and pedestrians to wear
vertically polarized glasses, which blocks the horizontally polarized
light from the lights. As an added bonus, the glasses would also
eliminate most forms of glare.

Sounds great.... but what about bright street lamps, light from
buildings. windows, etc., hand held spot lights, flashing directional
lights (red arrow sort of things), warning lamps on obstructions,
lamps at railway crossings, and so on?

How many of those light sources are mounted on vehicles or bicycles?
Probably none.
How many are located in the middle of the road where they might impair
a drivers or riders vision? Probably none.
Street and traffic lights are designed to be usable by drivers wearing
anti-glare polarized glasses.

Are you trying to say that nothing might shine in an individual's eyes
except for something mounted on a vehicle or a bicycle (ignoring for
the moment that a bicycle is classified as a vehicle in most states?

Of course not. If you look directly into street lighting, spot
lights, hazard flashers, and train headlights, you're going to be
temporarily blinded by the glare. When driving or riding, I have a
tendency to look into oncoming headlights. I know that I should, but
it's almost an automatic reflex with me. What I'm trying to do is
reduce the glare from the most common source of temporary glare
blinding, which is the oncoming bicycle or automobile headlight. If
these sources of lighting can be made horizontally polarized, and
riders are convinced that using polarizing glasses will reduce the
glare, then we have a partial solution to the glare problem. It won't
solve the problem of riders and drivers looking at overhead street
lights, but such drivers will be eliminated anyway by evolutionary
attrition.

And another point, are bicycles or auto's for that matter now
traveling "in the middle of the road"? I thought that they both
travelled in their lane, noticeably NOT in the middle of the road. :-)

That assumes that bicycle riders all follow the laws and ride on the
right hand side of the road (left in the UK), in the same direction as
the traffic. I've seen too many riders facing opposing traffic. In
some places, there are bicycle lanes on one side of the road, but not
the other. Add a few hills and curves, and the chances of being
temporarily blinded by oncoming automobile headlights is substantial.


For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlamp#High-intensity_discharge_(HID)
HID headlamp burners produce between 2,800 and 3,500 lumens
from between 35 and 38 watts of electrical power while
halogen filament headlamp bulbs produce between 700 and
2,100 lumens from between 40 and 72 watts at 12.8 V.
Double that for 2 headlights.

The typical bicycle headlight produces about 100 lumens per watt. A
Cree T6 XM-L LED will burn 2 Amps or about 8 watts and produces a
paltry 600 lumens:
https://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/XLampXML.pdf



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 08:00:10 +0700, John B.
wrote:

"Back in the day" everything that Cadillac did was considered a
feature. Remember the tail fins? Caddy had them first :-)

Cadillac’s IntelliBeam System Automatically Enables High-Beams:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/11/cadillacs-intellibeam-system-automatically-enables-high-beams-feature-spotlight/

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 17:17:25 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 7:11:30 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 05:43:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

How many of those light sources are mounted on vehicles or bicycles?
Probably none.
How many are located in the middle of the road where they might impair
a drivers or riders vision? Probably none.
Street and traffic lights are designed to be usable by drivers wearing
anti-glare polarized glasses.

Are you trying to say that nothing might shine in an individual's eyes
except for something mounted on a vehicle or a bicycle (ignoring for
the moment that a bicycle is classified as a vehicle in most states?

This is a bit off topic, but: I dislike light pollution in general. Now that
LEDs have made bright light less expensive, I've noticed more houses with
"artistic" lighting and "security" lighting blazing away. I'm aware of two
businesses I drive by from time to time that have parking lot lights about as
bright as aircraft landing lights. But almost every parking lot is fully lit
almost all the time, for no good reason I can see. Many street lamps don't shine
down and out; many instead shine upward as well, because someone liked the
style of a round-ish glass globe.

All these cause light to be reflected up into the sky. In a lot of the U.S. it
takes an hour drive or more - behind bright headlights! - to get to a spot that's
dark enough to be able to see the Milky Way. (I've seen the Milky Way only twice
this year, while on a camping vacation.)

I fondly remember lying on a dark lawn as a teen, gazing at the majestic night
sky and pondering the incredible distances, along with other mysteries of life
(like, for example, girls). I'm afraid few teens get that experience these days.


Aw Frank, you reveal your age. You were probably laying on the lawn
and thinking because your newspaper route hadn't paid the weekly
delivery and you didn't have enough money for a coke and a mars bar.

Today's children have credit cards and (I have read) consider shopping
at mall as a form of entertainment, far more exciting than the old
time Saturday Movies.


We need less glaring light, we need less light wasted upward, and we need less
"Danger! Danger!" fear of the dark.

- Frank Krygowski
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 19:47:03 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 06:11:25 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 05:43:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:15:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 20:57:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:13:05 +0700, John B.
wrote:

And, I might add, eliminate the complaints of "lights in my eyes".

There's a better and easier way that has been proposed many times and
rejected every time. Install a horizontally polarizing screen over
all headlights, and require riders, drivers, and pedestrians to wear
vertically polarized glasses, which blocks the horizontally polarized
light from the lights. As an added bonus, the glasses would also
eliminate most forms of glare.

Sounds great.... but what about bright street lamps, light from
buildings. windows, etc., hand held spot lights, flashing directional
lights (red arrow sort of things), warning lamps on obstructions,
lamps at railway crossings, and so on?

How many of those light sources are mounted on vehicles or bicycles?
Probably none.
How many are located in the middle of the road where they might impair
a drivers or riders vision? Probably none.
Street and traffic lights are designed to be usable by drivers wearing
anti-glare polarized glasses.

Are you trying to say that nothing might shine in an individual's eyes
except for something mounted on a vehicle or a bicycle (ignoring for
the moment that a bicycle is classified as a vehicle in most states?

Of course not. If you look directly into street lighting, spot
lights, hazard flashers, and train headlights, you're going to be
temporarily blinded by the glare. When driving or riding, I have a
tendency to look into oncoming headlights. I know that I should, but
it's almost an automatic reflex with me. What I'm trying to do is
reduce the glare from the most common source of temporary glare
blinding, which is the oncoming bicycle or automobile headlight. If
these sources of lighting can be made horizontally polarized, and
riders are convinced that using polarizing glasses will reduce the
glare, then we have a partial solution to the glare problem. It won't
solve the problem of riders and drivers looking at overhead street
lights, but such drivers will be eliminated anyway by evolutionary
attrition.

Actually, you know, I really can't remember ever being blinded by the
glare of street lamps and for a year or so I worked in Exterior
Lighting at an Airbase in Thailand and took care of street lights, and
only rarely by auto lights and never by heavy truck lights. Granted I
don't drive that much at night - we tend to be country people, get up
early and go to bed early, but still...


And another point, are bicycles or auto's for that matter now
traveling "in the middle of the road"? I thought that they both
travelled in their lane, noticeably NOT in the middle of the road. :-)

That assumes that bicycle riders all follow the laws and ride on the
right hand side of the road (left in the UK), in the same direction as
the traffic. I've seen too many riders facing opposing traffic. In
some places, there are bicycle lanes on one side of the road, but not
the other. Add a few hills and curves, and the chances of being
temporarily blinded by oncoming automobile headlights is substantial.

Well, of course bicycles all obey the law and ride on the "right" side
of the road. After all from reading the outcry right here on this site
every time a bicycle crash is reported one certainly must come to
believe that bicycles are always in the right. Or perhaps a better way
to put it is that bicycles are never wrong :-)



For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlamp#High-intensity_discharge_(HID)
HID headlamp burners produce between 2,800 and 3,500 lumens
from between 35 and 38 watts of electrical power while
halogen filament headlamp bulbs produce between 700 and
2,100 lumens from between 40 and 72 watts at 12.8 V.
Double that for 2 headlights.

The typical bicycle headlight produces about 100 lumens per watt. A
Cree T6 XM-L LED will burn 2 Amps or about 8 watts and produces a
paltry 600 lumens:
https://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/XLampXML.pdf


--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 10:55:37 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Actually, you know, I really can't remember ever being blinded by the
glare of street lamps and for a year or so I worked in Exterior
Lighting at an Airbase in Thailand and took care of street lights, and
only rarely by auto lights and never by heavy truck lights.

Perhaps the problem isn't your glare recovery time, but rather your
memory? Are you having some memory issues that might cause you to
forget unpleasant experiences such as being blinded by oncoming
traffic headlights?

Granted I
don't drive that much at night - we tend to be country people, get up
early and go to bed early, but still...

Well, that's also why I'm not bothered by headlight glare problems. I
don't ride at night any more. About 10 years ago, my glare recovery
times was about 2 seconds. I think it's about 4 seconds now. What I
considered tolerable 10 years ago has now become a problem. Also, I'm
a night person. Some things are best done under cover of darkness. I
do most everything after dark, except bicycle riding.

Well, of course bicycles all obey the law and ride on the "right" side
of the road. After all from reading the outcry right here on this site
every time a bicycle crash is reported one certainly must come to
believe that bicycles are always in the right. Or perhaps a better way
to put it is that bicycles are never wrong :-)

I beg to differ as usual. There are right and wrong bicycles.
Examples of wrong bicycles are fixies, downhill bikes without brakes,
design concept bicycles, drillium self-folding bicycles, exercise
machines, etc. However, that's probably not what you meant to write.
Methinks you meant that bicyclists, not bicycles all obey the law and
so on. Please adjust your vocabulary so that it is possible to
distinguish between the bicyclist and the machine he's riding.

Of course, I'm a model bicyclist, who would never ride on the wrong
side of the road. I'm also a bad liar. One sunny afternoon, I was in
a hurry to get an ice cream at a local tourist trap. So, I rode about
100 meters on the wrong side of the road. When I turned left, I
smashed into a dentist and his Pontiac. I skid across the hood,
bounced off the windshield, skid across the hood again, and finally
landed on my back on the pavement. Ouch. I survived the crash but
was subsequently kidnapped by an ambulance full of body snatchers who
conveyed me to the local hospital for some expensive X-rays. While
strapped to the backboard, a CHP officer personally delivered a
traffic ticket for riding on the wrong side of the road. I survived.
This illustrates that it is possible to become a cycling statistic
without the benefits of darkness, headlights, glare, or following
traffic regulations.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 21:56:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 10:55:37 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Actually, you know, I really can't remember ever being blinded by the
glare of street lamps and for a year or so I worked in Exterior
Lighting at an Airbase in Thailand and took care of street lights, and
only rarely by auto lights and never by heavy truck lights.
Perhaps the problem isn't your glare recovery time, but rather your
memory? Are you having some memory issues that might cause you to
forget unpleasant experiences such as being blinded by oncoming
traffic headlights?

Perhaps... But I can clearly remember cutting myself with a brand new
jackknife my grandfather had given me. And the resultant furor that
occurred when I got back to the house with my shoe full of blood.

My mother was a rather dominating woman and when my grandfather got
home she started screaming about giving an 8 year old boy a knife and
him cutting himself. My grandfather, who was very much the patriarch
of the family just said, "boy got to cut himself. That's how they
learn." My mother never said another word.

I didn't realize it then but in later years I believe it gave me a bit
better insight to my mother :-)

But I must agree, either many things don't bother me as much as others
or perhaps I don't have a vivid enough imagination. Or perhaps I just
don't moan and groan as much. All this talk about passing too close
and we gotta have a law. I can't remember ever being passed "too
close" and that is in more than 20 years of riding.

It would seem logical that if this passing too close was severe enough
to require a law I probably must have been passed too close in all
those years but I certainly can't remember being reduced to a
quivering mass of protoplasm by anyone passing me. But perhaps I
thought that if he didn't hit me than it obviously wasn't too close
:-)


Granted I
don't drive that much at night - we tend to be country people, get up
early and go to bed early, but still...

Well, that's also why I'm not bothered by headlight glare problems. I
don't ride at night any more. About 10 years ago, my glare recovery
times was about 2 seconds. I think it's about 4 seconds now. What I
considered tolerable 10 years ago has now become a problem. Also, I'm
a night person. Some things are best done under cover of darkness. I
do most everything after dark, except bicycle riding.

Well, of course bicycles all obey the law and ride on the "right" side
of the road. After all from reading the outcry right here on this site
every time a bicycle crash is reported one certainly must come to
believe that bicycles are always in the right. Or perhaps a better way
to put it is that bicycles are never wrong :-)

I beg to differ as usual. There are right and wrong bicycles.
Examples of wrong bicycles are fixies, downhill bikes without brakes,
design concept bicycles, drillium self-folding bicycles, exercise
machines, etc. However, that's probably not what you meant to write.
Methinks you meant that bicyclists, not bicycles all obey the law and
so on. Please adjust your vocabulary so that it is possible to
distinguish between the bicyclist and the machine he's riding.


Certainly, I freely admit to frequently writing "bicycle" when I
should write "bicyclist". But when referring to acts I'm not sure that
"bicycle" isn't permissible... after all we say he was hit by a car,
or the train didn't stop.


Of course, I'm a model bicyclist, who would never ride on the wrong
side of the road. I'm also a bad liar. One sunny afternoon, I was in
a hurry to get an ice cream at a local tourist trap. So, I rode about
100 meters on the wrong side of the road. When I turned left, I
smashed into a dentist and his Pontiac. I skid across the hood,
bounced off the windshield, skid across the hood again, and finally
landed on my back on the pavement. Ouch. I survived the crash but
was subsequently kidnapped by an ambulance full of body snatchers who
conveyed me to the local hospital for some expensive X-rays. While
strapped to the backboard, a CHP officer personally delivered a
traffic ticket for riding on the wrong side of the road. I survived.
This illustrates that it is possible to become a cycling statistic
without the benefits of darkness, headlights, glare, or following
traffic regulations.

And apparently you remember this rather traumatic happening quite
clearly :-)

Which is pretty much my point about light glare and my memories of it
:-)
--
cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
:On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 21:56:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
:wrote:

:On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 10:55:37 +0700, John B.
wrote:
:
:Actually, you know, I really can't remember ever being blinded by the
:glare of street lamps and for a year or so I worked in Exterior
:Lighting at an Airbase in Thailand and took care of street lights, and
:only rarely by auto lights and never by heavy truck lights.
:Perhaps the problem isn't your glare recovery time, but rather your
:memory? Are you having some memory issues that might cause you to
:forget unpleasant experiences such as being blinded by oncoming
:traffic headlights?
:
:Perhaps... But I can clearly remember cutting myself with a brand new
:jackknife my grandfather had given me. And the resultant furor that
ccurred when I got back to the house with my shoe full of blood.

:My mother was a rather dominating woman and when my grandfather got
:home she started screaming about giving an 8 year old boy a knife and
:him cutting himself. My grandfather, who was very much the patriarch
f the family just said, "boy got to cut himself. That's how they
:learn." My mother never said another word.

https://youtu.be/tCX9K0Jk6ME?t=146


--
sig 96

On 9/29/2019 9:03 PM, David Scheidt wrote:

snip

If I'd been
driving a car down the alley, I'd have run the guy and his pinarello
over.

If you'd been driving down the alley, and the light was aimed upwards so
it was blinding you on the second floor, then you wouldn't have been
bothered by it assuming you were driving on the ground.

The newer higher-end lights have a "breathe" mode with lower power for
the daytime DRL. For example, on the Gaciron V9D-1800, one of the six
modes is a 50-100 lumen "breathe mode" which is much better design for a
DRL. Even their $50 lower-end light, which is only 1000 lumens, includes
a breathe mode.

https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1x2LpCeuSBuNjSsziq6zq8pXa2.jpg

It's a little pricey at around $101
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32881748677.html but it does go on
sale occasionally for around $82. Very good beam angle. It is also a
power-bank for charging a phone.