Various Topics on Dodge Trucks

..ni.. .. ..e..

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, milesh wrote:

> > Which is (a) irrelevant because anything that close to the front of the
> > vehicle is too close for you to do anything about, and (b) they reduce
> > your distance vision because the increased foreground illumination causes
> > your eyes' pupils to constrict.
>
> Is there no end to which you will argue

There is indeed such an end. When there is no more misinformation
masquerading as "facts", then I don't argue.

> you will argue on any topic

Nope, just those I know.

> On very dark, narrow winding roads they greatly help.

Nope, it's an illusion. It's been well demonstrated that the
distance-vision reduction effect of high levels of foreground light is
both robust and "rapid", that is, it takes relatively small amounts of
additional foreground light to cause a relatively large reduction in
distance vision. At the same time, it's also well demonstrated that
increased foreground light causes drivers to subjectively rate their
lighting as "better", and you can continue to ramp the foreground light up
and up and up well past the point of absolutely destroyed distance vision,
with the drivers continuing to say "Ooh, yes, this is much better than
before".

> But in reality, it is personal preference.

Nope, it's physiology.

-Stern

..s..

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, milesh wrote:
>
>>> Which is (a) irrelevant because anything that close to the front of
>>> the vehicle is too close for you to do anything about, and (b) they
>>> reduce your distance vision because the increased foreground
>>> illumination causes your eyes' pupils to constrict.
>>
>> Is there no end to which you will argue
>
> There is indeed such an end. When there is no more misinformation
> masquerading as "facts", then I don't argue.
>
>> you will argue on any topic
>
> Nope, just those I know.
>
>> On very dark, narrow winding roads they greatly help.
>
> Nope, it's an illusion. It's been well demonstrated that the
> distance-vision reduction effect of high levels of foreground light is
> both robust and "rapid", that is, it takes relatively small amounts of
> additional foreground light to cause a relatively large reduction in
> distance vision. At the same time, it's also well demonstrated that
> increased foreground light causes drivers to subjectively rate their
> lighting as "better", and you can continue to ramp the foreground
> light up and up and up well past the point of absolutely destroyed
> distance vision, with the drivers continuing to say "Ooh, yes, this
> is much better than before".
>
>> But in reality, it is personal preference.
>
> Nope, it's physiology.
>
> -Stern

Does it help to keep your dash lights dim when driving at night too? It just
seems more comfortable to me without the dash lights at full bright glaring
at me.

..le..

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>
> Nope, it's an illusion. It's been well demonstrated that the
> distance-vision reduction effect of high levels of foreground light is
> both robust and "rapid", that is, it takes relatively small amounts of
> additional foreground light to cause a relatively large reduction in
> distance vision.

True when the light is aimed at the viewer. Aiming light down to a dark
area has a neat effect. It lights it up so you can see it. I prefer an
area to be lit, rather than dark. You can post all your rhetoric you
wish but it doesn't change the fact that a lit area is easier to see
than a dark one. The lights on my truck light up a portion of road that
is otherwise black.

..3r..

milesh wrote:
>
>
>
> True when the light is aimed at the viewer. Aiming light down to a dark
> area has a neat effect. It lights it up so you can see it. I prefer an
> area to be lit, rather than dark. You can post all your rhetoric you
> wish but it doesn't change the fact that a lit area is easier to see
> than a dark one. The lights on my truck light up a portion of road that
> is otherwise black.


You are one of those morons who run fog lights in clear weather.
There is no real benefit for you, and you blind others.
But hey, it makes your stupid truck look cool.

..le..

Nosey wrote:

> Does it help to keep your dash lights dim when driving at night too? It just
> seems more comfortable to me without the dash lights at full bright glaring
> at me.

I like mine a bit brighter than my wife does but full bright is
distracting.

..le..

223rem wrote:

> You are one of those morons who run fog lights in clear weather.
> There is no real benefit for you, and you blind others.
> But hey, it makes your stupid truck look cool.

Ah yes, the ever prevalent resort to name calling as a method of debate.
Around town I have my fogs off. Even on most highways I have them
off. I turn them on when driving on very dark mountain roads. In this
situation I prefer it over using the high beams which turns off the
fogs. If it doesn't work for you so be it. It baffles me as to why
people get so bent out of shape over differing opinions. I do what I
like, you do what you like, no problem...well, you have a problem with
that though.

If I wanted to look cool I'd put those cool blue lights on that blinds
oncoming traffic. No thanks.

..ni.. .. ..e..

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Nosey wrote:

> > Nope, it's an illusion. It's been well demonstrated that the
> > distance-vision reduction effect of high levels of foreground light is
> > both robust and "rapid", that is, it takes relatively small amounts of
> > additional foreground light to cause a relatively large reduction in
> > distance vision. At the same time, it's also well demonstrated that
> > increased foreground light causes drivers to subjectively rate their
> > lighting as "better", and you can continue to ramp the foreground
> > light up and up and up well past the point of absolutely destroyed
> > distance vision, with the drivers continuing to say "Ooh, yes, this is
> > much better than before".

> Does it help to keep your dash lights dim when driving at night too?

Absolutely! That's why they're on a rheostat, though few people use it.

There are two kinds of glare: "Discomfort glare" (that which causes one
discomfort or pain) and "Disabling glare" (that which reduces one's
ability to see to any degree). Most people don't realize that there is
always some degree of disabling glare with ANY amount of light directed
towards the eyes, and it's common to have a great deal of glare-induced
disability *without* any discomfort.

-Stern

.... ..ok..

milesh wrote:

> I turn them on when driving on very dark mountain roads.

What good will it do? They're not going to light up anything further
than the low beams would. If you need distance vision, use the high beams.

..

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:42:54 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>
wrote:

>milesh wrote:
>
>> I turn them on when driving on very dark mountain roads.
>
>What good will it do? They're not going to light up anything further
>than the low beams would. If you need distance vision, use the high beams.

As Mr. Stern refuses to acknowledge, fog lights tend (at least on my
Ram and my wife's Aztek) to illuminate the sides of the road better -
the shoulders and somewhat beyond. While here in Kansas I don't
really worry about mountain roads <G>, I *do* worry about going deer
hunting with my vehicle. I've dodged two of them so far because the
fog lights lit up areas along side the road where my regular and
bright lights don't reach.
PK

..J

On 10 Jun 2004 15:06:42 EDT, milesh <milesh@nounwantedspam.com> wrote:

>fogs. If it doesn't work for you so be it. It baffles me as to why
>people get so bent out of shape over differing opinions. I do what I

When your opinion blinds me, that is my business. It baffles me why
people like you get upset when I turn on my brights in response. It
further baffles me why, when you then turn yours on, and I am forced
to drive directly at your vehicle, you freak out.