From: hippo on 15 Mar 2010 18:04 Kev wrote: > > hippo wrote: > > > ...which was the main argument against compulsory lights on: you need the > > choice, because if the sun's behind you, the darker you are, the better. > > > > ????????????? > > Never in my experience have I been able to see ANY vehicle better with > the sun behind them and they have no lights. This is from years of > driving east at sunrise > > In all cases I have been able to spot vehicles with lights than without, > every time > > > Kev > > I was responding to and echoing Al's observation, that a smallish object (sportsbike with rider well down) *may* be less visible in specific conditions, e.g.: sun behind and dappled light from tree cover. I encounter the same thing with bikes on various roads round here. It's an anomaly. Any four wheeler has a bigger frontal area for the light to highlight against. With some bike, the light just seems to make that final pont of reference blend into the sun. We're not the only 2 drivers & I'm *definitely* not the only rider who'd say this. Cheers -- Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: Albm&ctd on 16 Mar 2010 07:49 In article <4b9e33f5$0$26498$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, kevcat(a)optunet.com.au says... > hippo wrote: > > > ...which was the main argument against compulsory lights on: you need the > > choice, because if the sun's behind you, the darker you are, the better. > > > > ????????????? > > Never in my experience have I been able to see ANY vehicle better with > the sun behind them and they have no lights. This is from years of > driving east at sunrise > > In all cases I have been able to spot vehicles with lights than without, > every time > > > Kev > Ever think our vehicles were lower to the ground, rather than a truck which is like an observatory in comparison. Al -- I don't take sides. It's more fun to insult everyone. http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html
From: Albm&ctd on 16 Mar 2010 07:49 In article <hnmatl$g6e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au says... > Kev wrote: > > > > hippo wrote: > > > > > ...which was the main argument against compulsory lights on: you need the > > > choice, because if the sun's behind you, the darker you are, the better. > > > > > > > ????????????? > > > > Never in my experience have I been able to see ANY vehicle better with > > the sun behind them and they have no lights. This is from years of > > driving east at sunrise > > > > In all cases I have been able to spot vehicles with lights than without, > > every time > > > > > > Kev > > > > > > I was responding to and echoing Al's observation, that a smallish object > (sportsbike with rider well down) *may* be less visible in specific > conditions, e.g.: sun behind and dappled light from tree cover. I > encounter the same thing with bikes on various roads round here. It's an > anomaly. Any four wheeler has a bigger frontal area for the light to > highlight against. With some bike, the light just seems to make that final > pont of reference blend into the sun. We're not the only 2 drivers & I'm > *definitely* not the only rider who'd say this. Cheers > Another unrelated problem. I heard that at night, the twin headlights on some motorcycles had people pulling out on them because they thought it was a car further away. Sorta makes sense. Al -- I don't take sides. It's more fun to insult everyone. http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html
From: Kev on 16 Mar 2010 08:45 Albm&ctd wrote: > In article <4b9e33f5$0$26498$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, > kevcat(a)optunet.com.au says... >> hippo wrote: >> >>> ...which was the main argument against compulsory lights on: you need the >>> choice, because if the sun's behind you, the darker you are, the better. >>> >> ????????????? >> >> Never in my experience have I been able to see ANY vehicle better with >> the sun behind them and they have no lights. This is from years of >> driving east at sunrise >> >> In all cases I have been able to spot vehicles with lights than without, >> every time >> >> >> Kev >> > Ever think our vehicles were lower to the ground, rather than a truck which is > like an observatory in comparison. > > Al I don't drive the truck home, I drive my car home. usually getting home at 4-5 am just in time for the sunrise in summer Kev
From: Albm&ctd on 16 Mar 2010 22:50 In article <4b9f7d70$0$11181$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, kevcat(a)optunet.com.au says... > Albm&ctd wrote: > > In article <4b9e33f5$0$26498$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, > > kevcat(a)optunet.com.au says... > >> hippo wrote: > >> > >>> ...which was the main argument against compulsory lights on: you need the > >>> choice, because if the sun's behind you, the darker you are, the better. > >>> > >> ????????????? > >> > >> Never in my experience have I been able to see ANY vehicle better with > >> the sun behind them and they have no lights. This is from years of > >> driving east at sunrise > >> > >> In all cases I have been able to spot vehicles with lights than without, > >> every time > >> > >> > >> Kev > >> > > Ever think our vehicles were lower to the ground, rather than a truck which is > > like an observatory in comparison. > > > > Al > > > I don't drive the truck home, I drive my car home. usually getting home > at 4-5 am just in time for the sunrise in summer > > > Kev > Have you taken any real notice of bikes with their light on? The only time I use it in daylight is a flick to pass. I don't leave it on. Mine is too early for the hard wired lights on anyway. Like I say I've only had two instances where the headlight has obscured an oncoming bike. In some condition a light on definitely makes a difference such as low light levels, in rain etc... oh and probably at night. Al -- I don't take sides. It's more fun to insult everyone. http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: anyone here still own a Prius? Next: Work vehicle- Hliux Vs C'Dore Wagon |