Timothy J. Lee wrote:

>In article <LtidnaU7H-TQWOrcRVn-ig@speakeasy.net>, RWM <RWM@RWMann.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <41764E33.1000505@RWMann.com>, RWM <RWM@RWMann.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>How about best aftermarket kit to burn the high beams at reduced voltage
>>>>as DRLs?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Just make it a habit to turn on the low beam headlamps all the time if
>>>you want DRLs. Don't use the high beams, because they can annoy other
>>>drivers with excessive glare in low light conditions.
>>>
>>>
>>Sadly, good habits in this area don't yield insurance discounts.
>>
>>
>
>If you are intent on having DRLs for the insurance discount, use the low
>beams, not the high beams. You really don't want to have the DRLs on in
>low light conditions (e.g. overcast) blinding someone with too much glare,
>causing him/her to crash into you.
>
>And don't use the turn signals as DRLs either, unless you want to increase
>the chance of giving false signals.
>
>

While I appreciate your views and concerns, NHTSA and FMVSS 108 allow
for numerous DRL configurations, including the use of turn signals (most
GM and many Chrysler), high beams at reduced intensity, low beams, and
in some cases, auxiliary lights.

I wish NHTSA paid as much attention to the blinding glare produced by
poorly designed headlight systems, beam cutoffs, aiming and
inappropriate use of fog lights and "kewl" overwattage
bulbs/inserts/capsules.

 

Timothy J. Lee wrote:

>In article <LtidnaU7H-TQWOrcRVn-ig@speakeasy.net>, RWM <RWM@RWMann.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <41764E33.1000505@RWMann.com>, RWM <RWM@RWMann.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>How about best aftermarket kit to burn the high beams at reduced voltage
>>>>as DRLs?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Just make it a habit to turn on the low beam headlamps all the time if
>>>you want DRLs. Don't use the high beams, because they can annoy other
>>>drivers with excessive glare in low light conditions.
>>>
>>>
>>Sadly, good habits in this area don't yield insurance discounts.
>>
>>
>
>If you are intent on having DRLs for the insurance discount, use the low
>beams, not the high beams. You really don't want to have the DRLs on in
>low light conditions (e.g. overcast) blinding someone with too much glare,
>causing him/her to crash into you.
>
>And don't use the turn signals as DRLs either, unless you want to increase
>the chance of giving false signals.
>
>

While I appreciate your views and concerns, NHTSA and FMVSS 108 allow
for numerous DRL configurations, including the use of turn signals (most
GM and many Chrysler), high beams at reduced intensity, low beams, and
in some cases, auxiliary lights.

I wish NHTSA paid as much attention to the blinding glare produced by
poorly designed headlight systems, beam cutoffs, aiming and
inappropriate use of fog lights and "kewl" overwattage
bulbs/inserts/capsules.

 

In article <I76dnY9QRITywOXcRVn-vA@rcn.net>, news@nada.x says...
>Larry wrote:
>> To be honest, other than AAA, I no of no other insurance carrier offering a
>> discount for DRL's. I'd assume there may be a couple more out there, but
>> the insurance industry in general does not offer that discount.
>
>GEICO does, and they're a pretty big operation here in the US.

I should of guessed. Geico will never get my business. This stupidity
is another reason to add to the list.
--------------
Alex

 

In article <I76dnY9QRITywOXcRVn-vA@rcn.net>, news@nada.x says...
>Larry wrote:
>> To be honest, other than AAA, I no of no other insurance carrier offering a
>> discount for DRL's. I'd assume there may be a couple more out there, but
>> the insurance industry in general does not offer that discount.
>
>GEICO does, and they're a pretty big operation here in the US.

I should of guessed. Geico will never get my business. This stupidity
is another reason to add to the list.
--------------
Alex

 

"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:cla2sg$cv$2@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>
> I should of guessed. Geico will never get my business. This stupidity
> is another reason to add to the list.

What is stupid about having a system that increases the visibility of
vehicles, and their direction of travel?

--
Brian

Ever stop to think... and forget to start again?

 

"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:cla2sg$cv$2@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>
> I should of guessed. Geico will never get my business. This stupidity
> is another reason to add to the list.

What is stupid about having a system that increases the visibility of
vehicles, and their direction of travel?

--
Brian

Ever stop to think... and forget to start again?

 

In article <41785DA7.5060104@RWMann.com>, RWM <RWM@RWMann.com> wrote:
>Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>>If you are intent on having DRLs for the insurance discount, use the low
>>beams, not the high beams. You really don't want to have the DRLs on in
>>low light conditions (e.g. overcast) blinding someone with too much glare,
>>causing him/her to crash into you.
>>
>>And don't use the turn signals as DRLs either, unless you want to increase
>>the chance of giving false signals.
>
>While I appreciate your views and concerns, NHTSA and FMVSS 108 allow
>for numerous DRL configurations, including the use of turn signals (most
>GM and many Chrysler), high beams at reduced intensity, low beams, and
>in some cases, auxiliary lights.

Simply because NHTSA / FMVSS 108 allows really bad DRL configurations
does not mean that you have to install a really bad DRL configuration
in your car. Since it allows better DRL configurations (low beams or
white auxiliary lamps), it would make sense to use one of these better
configurations if you want to install DRL on your vehicle.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

 

In article <41785DA7.5060104@RWMann.com>, RWM <RWM@RWMann.com> wrote:
>Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>>If you are intent on having DRLs for the insurance discount, use the low
>>beams, not the high beams. You really don't want to have the DRLs on in
>>low light conditions (e.g. overcast) blinding someone with too much glare,
>>causing him/her to crash into you.
>>
>>And don't use the turn signals as DRLs either, unless you want to increase
>>the chance of giving false signals.
>
>While I appreciate your views and concerns, NHTSA and FMVSS 108 allow
>for numerous DRL configurations, including the use of turn signals (most
>GM and many Chrysler), high beams at reduced intensity, low beams, and
>in some cases, auxiliary lights.

Simply because NHTSA / FMVSS 108 allows really bad DRL configurations
does not mean that you have to install a really bad DRL configuration
in your car. Since it allows better DRL configurations (low beams or
white auxiliary lamps), it would make sense to use one of these better
configurations if you want to install DRL on your vehicle.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

 

In article <Fq7ed.28448$cr4.15781@edtnps84>, Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada says...
>"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
>news:cla2sg$cv$2@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>>
>> I should of guessed. Geico will never get my business. This stupidity
>> is another reason to add to the list.
>
>What is stupid about having a system that increases the visibility of
>vehicles, and their direction of travel?

When poorly executed, as it often is, it blinds other drivers on the road.
--------------
Alex

 

In article <Fq7ed.28448$cr4.15781@edtnps84>, Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada says...
>"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
>news:cla2sg$cv$2@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>>
>> I should of guessed. Geico will never get my business. This stupidity
>> is another reason to add to the list.
>
>What is stupid about having a system that increases the visibility of
>vehicles, and their direction of travel?

When poorly executed, as it often is, it blinds other drivers on the road.
--------------
Alex

 

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article <Fq7ed.28448$cr4.15781@edtnps84>, Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada says...
>
>>"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
>>news:cla2sg$cv$2@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>>
>>>I should of guessed. Geico will never get my business. This stupidity
>>>is another reason to add to the list.
>>
>>What is stupid about having a system that increases the visibility of
>>vehicles, and their direction of travel?
>
>
> When poorly executed, as it often is, it blinds other drivers on the road.
> --------------
> Alex

===============

1/4 of the vehicles on the road seem to have one headlight pointed at
JUPITER. That could be part of the problem to begin with. . :-(

'Curly'

 

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article <Fq7ed.28448$cr4.15781@edtnps84>, Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada says...
>
>>"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
>>news:cla2sg$cv$2@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>>
>>>I should of guessed. Geico will never get my business. This stupidity
>>>is another reason to add to the list.
>>
>>What is stupid about having a system that increases the visibility of
>>vehicles, and their direction of travel?
>
>
> When poorly executed, as it often is, it blinds other drivers on the road.
> --------------
> Alex

===============

1/4 of the vehicles on the road seem to have one headlight pointed at
JUPITER. That could be part of the problem to begin with. . :-(

'Curly'

 

motsco_ _ wrote:
> Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> In article <Fq7ed.28448$cr4.15781@edtnps84>, Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada
>> says...
>>
>>> "Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:cla2sg$cv$2@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>>>
>>>> I should of guessed. Geico will never get my business. This stupidity
>>>> is another reason to add to the list.
>>>
>>>
>>> What is stupid about having a system that increases the visibility of
>>> vehicles, and their direction of travel?
>>
>>
>>
>> When poorly executed, as it often is, it blinds other drivers on the
>> road.
>> --------------
>> Alex
>
>
> ===============
>
> 1/4 of the vehicles on the road seem to have one headlight pointed at
> JUPITER. That could be part of the problem to begin with. . :-(
>
> 'Curly'
>

Yep, I wish that NHTSA paid as much attention to the blinding glare
produced by poorly designed OEM headlight system optics and beam
cutoffs, and that local licensing authorities paid even closer attention
to poor aiming and inappropriate mounting and use of fog/driving lights,
especially those "kewl" overwattage bulbs/inserts/capsules.

 

motsco_ _ wrote:
> Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> In article <Fq7ed.28448$cr4.15781@edtnps84>, Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada
>> says...
>>
>>> "Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:cla2sg$cv$2@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>>>
>>>> I should of guessed. Geico will never get my business. This stupidity
>>>> is another reason to add to the list.
>>>
>>>
>>> What is stupid about having a system that increases the visibility of
>>> vehicles, and their direction of travel?
>>
>>
>>
>> When poorly executed, as it often is, it blinds other drivers on the
>> road.
>> --------------
>> Alex
>
>
> ===============
>
> 1/4 of the vehicles on the road seem to have one headlight pointed at
> JUPITER. That could be part of the problem to begin with. . :-(
>
> 'Curly'
>

Yep, I wish that NHTSA paid as much attention to the blinding glare
produced by poorly designed OEM headlight system optics and beam
cutoffs, and that local licensing authorities paid even closer attention
to poor aiming and inappropriate mounting and use of fog/driving lights,
especially those "kewl" overwattage bulbs/inserts/capsules.

 

"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:clb8sm$paf$9@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>
> When poorly executed, as it often is, it blinds other drivers on the road.

Perhaps it is the general lack of concern executed by vehicle drivers, that
is the cause of the blinding glare. For example, the improperly loaded trunk
or pickup bed, that has the vehicle's lights aimed higher than legally
permitted.

--
Brian

Did you ever notice, that; the Roman Numerals for forty (40) are XL?