Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (December 2006, week 3)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:15:57 -0800
Reply-To:     Jake de Villiers <crescentbeachguitar@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jake de Villiers <crescentbeachguitar@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: SA grills available again
Comments: To: "Oxroad@aol.com" <Oxroad@aol.com>
In-Reply-To:  <bef.ae82b7a.32ba3ae4@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Okeydokey Jeff.

As I look through the posts in this thread spread out before me courtesy of GMail, I don't see any by FRONTLEFTSPEAKER.

This is, no doubt, why we are miscommunicating.

I'm not arguing with your premise at all; I'm all for road courtesy. Its just that without FLSP's post, yours kinda came out of nowhere, so I was trying to help.

Sorry if I'm not.

On 12/19/06, Oxroad@aol.com <Oxroad@aol.com> wrote: > > As far as High Beams v. Driving Lights, I would say, you say Tomato and I > say Tomato. (You have to pronounce "tomato" differently the first and second > time in order for this last sentence to work.) > > And by that I mean, I may be wrong, but... > > What is technically the difference in the definition of "high beam" vs > "driving light"? If the assumption is that the moniker "driving light" makes > the light OK for use in areas with traffic I would say poppycock. I don't > see how or where lights in addition to DOT low beams could not negatively > impact other drivers. > > And now, as if I were itching for a fight, I'd add anyone who drives in > traffic with anything other than their DOT approved low beams is something > of a rube. (Well maybe not "DOT" approved low beams--but low beams at > least.) > > So call them driving lights or high beams or fog lights or whatever (and I > agree that these are different animals) but if you're in an urban area with > traffic and you're using any of the three you're telegraphing to the world I > am a selfish rube. (foggy condition would justify using fog lights--so in > this case, not a rube, more of a forward thinking truth seeker.) > > I've heard the arguments about fog lights having that low wide beam not > interfering with other drivers. Poppycock, I say. (that's twice I've said > it) First of all the maroons who drive with their fog lights on on a clear > night are just the kind of maroons that have adjusted those foggers by > smashing a curb so now they blind every on-coming driver and all those in > front who have rear view mirrors. Second, even if the lights are adjusted > properly, real world conditions like speed bumps, divits, hills, pot > holes, convex roadways, etc. offer ample opportunities for those foggers to > blind just about anyone in the area. And then there's the high profile > vehicles like the EXCURSIONs or many SUVs where the foggers are mounted at > the height of a sedans windshield, give or take. > > In other news, back in the day and back East my family had a Volvo with > factory fog lights. In order to pass the state inspection the fog lights had > to be wired so they would turn off when the high beams were on. That is to > say if you had on the foggers and you clicked on the high beams the fogger > would turn off. I don't know if this is still the law anywhere. > > I will add in California, which is a state without a plan and in the few > places where it has a plan it is a bad one, there is no state safety > inspection required for vehicles. Your vehicle must pass a smog test, but no > one will ever check your brakes or light adjustment etc. As a result I would > say at least 25% of the vehicles in this area have headlights that are > annoyingly and dangerously out of alignment. Makes me wonder about the state > of the brakes. > > I guess I got off track. But is there some technical difference between > driving lights v. high beams? > > Oh, and my response was to FRONTLEFTSPEAKER's post. Kim's message hadn't > posted yet at that time. > > I hope that clears something up, or starts something up. ;) > > Best, > Jeff > 83.5 Westy > LA,CA > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 12/19/2006 9:59:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, > crescentbeachguitar@GMAIL.COM writes: > > Jeff, why don't you read Chris' first post again. He clearly describes > the > small inner lights as not high beams. They are and this is what Kim is > referring to. :) > >

-- Jake 1984 Vanagon GL 1986 Westy Weekender "Dixie" www.crescentbeachguitar.com


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.