foglamps
in [Classic Motorcycles]
|
From: Adrian on 16 Nov 2009 13:32 Higgins <the.best.names.are.gone(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Not sure why you would want to ban using fog lights with dipped lights. > That's usually the best combination as full beams just bounce straight > back at you in fog. Unless the fog's so thick that dip bounces back - in which case, sides + fogs...
From: Oily on 16 Nov 2009 14:20 > Austin Shackles wrote: > "Krusty" enlightened us thusly.......... > > proper use includes turning the fecker off when there's another > > vehicle in view behind you, such as in traffic queues. The only one > > in a queue who should have the RFL on is the tail-end-charlie. > > The percentage of time where lit RFLs are doing something usefull is > 0.0 followed by several thousand more zeros then a 1 at the end. If it > really is /that/ foggy, another car won't be closing at any sort of > speed so will still see your rear lights. From a biker's point of view, maybe, but not when you're in your Corvette with the windows steamed up in winter and you come up in thick fog behind some old granny doing 2m/fortnight. You'd be glad she had 'em on at first, *then* you'd be happier if she then switched them off, and you would probably then feel the need to put yours on for a while 'til that 40ft artic caught you up and saw you. Anyone with enough > intelligence to switch their RFLs off when a car's approaching from > behind will also have enough intelligence to flick their brake lights > or flashers a couple of times. Nice, make some fucker behind really jump on their brakes for no reason *and* cause a panic with the hazards as well, just what you want. > > For the rest of the time, which is effectively 100%, all they do is > reduce visibility for everyone behind & mask brake lights. > Doing their job then I see, at least you will see them.
From: Oily on 16 Nov 2009 14:24 "Higgins" wrote in message......... > Austin Shackles wrote: > > sadly, RVLR doesn't proscribe the use of fog lights at the same time as > > dipped lights, exceopt in the clause referred to about dazzle and > > visibility. > > > Not sure why you would want to ban using fog lights with dipped lights. > That's usually the best combination as full beams just bounce straight > back at you in fog. Ban using dipped lights with fog lights, which is not the same.
From: Oily on 16 Nov 2009 14:29 "Adrian" wrote.......... > Higgins gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > > > Not sure why you would want to ban using fog lights with dipped lights. > > That's usually the best combination as full beams just bounce straight > > back at you in fog. > > Unless the fog's so thick that dip bounces back - in which case, sides + > fogs... But we don't get fogs so thick anymore, so ban the fog lights, make 'em purely ornamental so posh chavs can have the bling but they don't work.
From: Krusty on 17 Nov 2009 03:52
ian field wrote: > > "Krusty" <dontwantany(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message > > > > The percentage of time where lit RFLs are doing something usefull is > > 0.0 followed by several thousand more zeros then a 1 at the end. If > > it really is that foggy, another car won't be closing at any sort of > > speed so will still see your rear lights. > > You obviously haven't seen the fuckwits driving in fog. Obviously not as despite having been driving for 26 years without using foglights, nobody's ever driven into the back of me. How many times have you been rear-ended in fog? -- Krusty '03 Tiger 955i '02 MV Senna '96 Tiger (for sale) '79 Fantic Hiro 250 (for sale) '81 Corvette (for sale) |