Lies about coach driver caused by ubdertaking cyclist

On 18/10/2019 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 08:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 00:51, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 14:33, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
Â*obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
Â*30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings.

Try that sentence again?

No worse than some of your typos.

If it's a typo, there is more than one there, within ten words. It isn't
possible to discern your meaning (if any).

Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and
never give it a chance.

Streetlights are - sometimes - good enough for travellers moving at
walking pace or a bit faster. They are rarely good enough for traffic
moving at up to 40mph in an environment where pedestrians and
cyclists share the space.

I guess the car must warp the light.

Guessing is all very well, but there's no substitute for knowledge.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good
contrast, able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Whenever that was, that was then. This is now. Headlights were always
advisable

You don't remember?

I do remember sodium lights. They weren't used everywhere (as you may
not remember).

(and in my view should always have been compulsory) in any case.

You're confusing the two functions of lighting.

Not at all.

I will leave you to work out the difference.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

Headlights don't "obliterate" (or even obscure) my vision.

You're either lucky or not observant. Given the pattern of the things
you say in your posts over the years, I don't think it is luck.

You seem to have a particular street in mind. Wherever it is (and
assuming it isn't only inside your head), not all streets are lit to
a standard that will allow traffic to proceed without the use of
headlights.

If you don't feel safe you could slow down a bit.

Or use headlights, which fix the problem (as required by law - not that
law means much to cyclists).

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

What are you on about?

When was the last time your carer let you out?

What are you on about?

Do you actually know what you're on about?

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a
couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly after
just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Much light is far better than a little light, and immeasurable better
then the total lack of light *some* road-users seem to "think" is OK.

Wow, look at those goal posts move.

A lot of light = best
Less light = not as good
No light (cyclist default) = bad.

Too much light = blinding.

--
Bod

On 18/10/2019 11:02, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2019 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 08:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 00:51, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 14:33, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
Â*obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
Â*30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see
where they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without
lights, etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings.

Try that sentence again?

No worse than some of your typos.

If it's a typo, there is more than one there, within ten words. It
isn't possible to discern your meaning (if any).

Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and
never give it a chance.

Streetlights are - sometimes - good enough for travellers moving at
walking pace or a bit faster. They are rarely good enough for
traffic moving at up to 40mph in an environment where pedestrians
and cyclists share the space.

I guess the car must warp the light.

Guessing is all very well, but there's no substitute for knowledge.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good
contrast, able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Whenever that was, that was then. This is now. Headlights were
always advisable

You don't remember?

I do remember sodium lights. They weren't used everywhere (as you may
not remember).

(and in my view should always have been compulsory) in any case.

You're confusing the two functions of lighting.

Not at all.

I will leave you to work out the difference.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

Headlights don't "obliterate" (or even obscure) my vision.

You're either lucky or not observant. Given the pattern of the things
you say in your posts over the years, I don't think it is luck.

You seem to have a particular street in mind. Wherever it is (and
assuming it isn't only inside your head), not all streets are lit to
a standard that will allow traffic to proceed without the use of
headlights.

If you don't feel safe you could slow down a bit.

Or use headlights, which fix the problem (as required by law - not
that law means much to cyclists).

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

What are you on about?

When was the last time your carer let you out?

What are you on about?

Do you actually know what you're on about?

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a
couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly after
just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Much light is far better than a little light, and immeasurable
better then the total lack of light *some* road-users seem to
"think" is OK.

Wow, look at those goal posts move.

A lot of light = best
Less light = not as good
No light (cyclist default) = bad.

Too much light = blinding.

That might indeed be the case.

So it's a good job that the power of vehicle lamps is not unlimited.

On 18/10/2019 10:58, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2019 10:44, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 02:10, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 12:52:40 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 20:55, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:14:36 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 2:33:47 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
Â*Â* obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
Â*Â* 30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings.
Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and
never
give it a chance.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's
certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain
puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their
best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good
contrast,
able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and
the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a
stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some
yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic
lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a
couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly
after just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Exactly. Making motorists feel safer just leads to them taking
more risks and those who use the roads as a matter of right rather
than under licence suffer the consequences.
Dipped headlights do nothing on street lit roads other than
obfuscate primary road users.

And the extra fuel consumed powering the lights.

Ah, yes... Common Fallacy #261.

Where does the energy to power the headlights come from?

Â*From the vehicle's alternator, of course, as buffered by the battery.
Did you not know that?

Which ultimately comes from the car's engine having to work harder to
produce the extra energy for any lights etc.
This results in higher fuel consumption.

Does it? Are you sure?

There used to be problems with the older generators (producing DC),
which were inefficient compared with today's alternators (which produce
AC, which is then rectified). The modern units are so much more
efficient that they produce more output than is required to run the
electrical systems and charge the battery.

Just as modern cars never seem to rust any more (at least, not at a few
years old like they used to), they also rarely seem to suffer from a
flat battery. The industry didn't drop generators and adopt alternators
for nothing. If I ever have need of my trusty old battery-charger
(bought over 40 years ago) again, I'll have a job finding it somewhere
out in the garage. It's there... but where...? Not that it matters much
from one year's end to another...

You could check:

http://what-when-how.com/automobile/...mo-automobile/

[for USA terminology "dynamo", read "generator"]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternator_(automotive)

On 18/10/2019 11:13, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 10:58, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2019 10:44, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 02:10, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 12:52:40 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 20:55, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:14:36 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 2:33:47 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
Â*Â* obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed
lit
Â*Â* 30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see
where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without
lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings.
Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and
never
give it a chance.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's
certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain
puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their
best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good
contrast,
able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and
the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a
stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some
yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic
lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I
would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take
a couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly
after just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Exactly. Making motorists feel safer just leads to them taking
more risks and those who use the roads as a matter of right
rather than under licence suffer the consequences.
Dipped headlights do nothing on street lit roads other than
obfuscate primary road users.

And the extra fuel consumed powering the lights.

Ah, yes... Common Fallacy #261.

Where does the energy to power the headlights come from?

Â*From the vehicle's alternator, of course, as buffered by the
battery. Did you not know that?

Which ultimately comes from the car's engine having to work harder to
produce the extra energy for any lights etc.
This results in higher fuel consumption.

Does it? Are you sure?

There used to be problems with the older generators (producing DC),
which were inefficient compared with today's alternators (which produce
AC, which is then rectified). The modern units are so much more
efficient that they produce more output than is required to run the
electrical systems and charge the battery.

Just as modern cars never seem to rust any more (at least, not at a few
years old like they used to), they also rarely seem to suffer from a
flat battery. The industry didn't drop generators and adopt alternators
for nothing. If I ever have need of my trusty old battery-charger
(bought over 40 years ago) again, I'll have a job finding it somewhere
out in the garage. It's there... but where...? Not that it matters much
from one year's end to another...

You could check:

http://what-when-how.com/automobile/...mo-automobile/


[for USA terminology "dynamo", read "generator"]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternator_(automotive)

It doesn't matter how efficient a power gathering system is, nothing
is 100% efficient. The fact remains that the more power is used, then
the more power is required. There is no point at which power becomes free.

--
Bod

On 18/10/2019 10:46, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 08:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 02:10, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 12:52:40 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 20:55, Simon Jester wrote:

And the extra fuel consumed powering the lights.

Ah, yes... Common Fallacy #261.


Where does the energy to power the headlights come from?

In a previous thread Nugent said it came from the alternator.

Do you say it doesn't?

Good to see you don't deny it an that you sent another post to confirm it.

I can't be bothered to give you a physics lesson. Your history makes it
obvious you won't be receptive.

On 18/10/2019 10:58, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2019 10:44, JNugent wrote:

Don't confuse Noddy with facts. He has enough trouble getting up in the
morning.

On 18/10/2019 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 08:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 00:51, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 14:33, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
Â*obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
Â*30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings.

Try that sentence again?

No worse than some of your typos.

If it's a typo, there is more than one there, within ten words. It isn't
possible to discern your meaning (if any).

You don't appear to have tried using your telepathy act so much recently
but dropping it doesn't rule out a happy medium of deduction.

Try:
Yes, it's good for people to see their surroundings.
Yes, it's a good thing for people to see their surroundings.

Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and
never give it a chance.

Streetlights are - sometimes - good enough for travellers moving at
walking pace or a bit faster. They are rarely good enough for traffic
moving at up to 40mph in an environment where pedestrians and
cyclists share the space.

I guess the car must warp the light.

Guessing is all very well, but there's no substitute for knowledge.

In my world I do know that light does not warp around cars. I have to
guess about what happens in Nugent world.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good
contrast, able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Whenever that was, that was then. This is now. Headlights were always
advisable

You don't remember?

I do remember sodium lights. They weren't used everywhere (as you may
not remember).

Translation. If something was extremely common but not universal it
didn't exist.

(and in my view should always have been compulsory) in any case.

You're confusing the two functions of lighting.

Not at all.

You provide no clues that you do. (*)

I will leave you to work out the difference.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

Headlights don't "obliterate" (or even obscure) my vision.

You're either lucky or not observant. Given the pattern of the things
you say in your posts over the years, I don't think it is luck.

You seem to have a particular street in mind. Wherever it is (and
assuming it isn't only inside your head), not all streets are lit to
a standard that will allow traffic to proceed without the use of
headlights.

If you don't feel safe you could slow down a bit.

Or use headlights, which fix the problem (as required by law - not that
law means much to cyclists).

The law *allows* use of sidelights under steetlamps.

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

What are you on about?

When was the last time your carer let you out?

What are you on about?

Do you actually know what you're on about?

I do. It looks as though you haven't been near a road for at least 5 years.

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a
couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly after
just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Much light is far better than a little light, and immeasurable better
then the total lack of light *some* road-users seem to "think" is OK.

Wow, look at those goal posts move.


(*) Including this
A lot of light = best
Less light = not as good
No light (cyclist default) = bad.

On 18/10/2019 11:31, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2019 11:13, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 10:58, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2019 10:44, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 02:10, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 12:52:40 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 20:55, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:14:36 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 2:33:47 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a
more
Â*Â* obtuse suggestion.

Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:

Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only
ed lit
Â*Â* 30mph roads would also ellp safety.

Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see
where
they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without
lights,
etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings.
Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces
and never
give it a chance.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's
certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain
puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their
best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good
contrast,
able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and
the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a
stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some
yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic
lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I
would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take
a couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly
after just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Exactly. Making motorists feel safer just leads to them taking
more risks and those who use the roads as a matter of right
rather than under licence suffer the consequences.
Dipped headlights do nothing on street lit roads other than
obfuscate primary road users.

And the extra fuel consumed powering the lights.

Ah, yes... Common Fallacy #261.

Where does the energy to power the headlights come from?

Â*From the vehicle's alternator, of course, as buffered by the
battery. Did you not know that?

Which ultimately comes from the car's engine having to work harder to
produce the extra energy for any lights etc.
This results in higher fuel consumption.

Does it? Are you sure?

There used to be problems with the older generators (producing DC),
which were inefficient compared with today's alternators (which
produce AC, which is then rectified). The modern units are so much
more efficient that they produce more output than is required to run
the electrical systems and charge the battery.

Just as modern cars never seem to rust any more (at least, not at a
few years old like they used to), they also rarely seem to suffer from
a flat battery. The industry didn't drop generators and adopt
alternators for nothing. If I ever have need of my trusty old
battery-charger (bought over 40 years ago) again, I'll have a job
finding it somewhere out in the garage. It's there... but where...?
Not that it matters much from one year's end to another...

You could check:

http://what-when-how.com/automobile/...mo-automobile/


[for USA terminology "dynamo", read "generator"]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternator_(automotive)

It doesn't matter how efficient a power gathering system is, nothing
is 100% efficient.

That is true.

It does not militate against the case for the alternator or the case
against the generator. This is yet another improvement in vehicle
construction over the last few decades.

The fact remains that the more power is used, then
the more power is required. There is no point at which power becomes free.

There comes a point - very soon - where power is wasted (see your own
point above re. nothing being 100% efficient). Reducing the wastage
(which an alternator does by comparison with a generator) has the same
effect as obtaining (some) power for free.

On 18/10/2019 13:11, TMS320 wrote:

On 18/10/2019 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 08:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 00:51, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 14:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
Â*obtuse suggestion.
Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:
Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
Â*30mph roads would also ellp safety.
Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see
where they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without
lights, etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings.

Try that sentence again?

No worse than some of your typos.

If it's a typo, there is more than one there, within ten words. It
isn't possible to discern your meaning (if any).

You don't appear to have tried using your telepathy act so much recently
but dropping it doesn't rule out a happy medium of deduction.

Try:
Yes, it's good for people to see their surroundings.
Yes, it's a good thing for people to see their surroundings.

I have long suspected that English is not your first language. Sentences
written is some sort of pidgin seem to confirm it.

Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and
never give it a chance.

Streetlights are - sometimes - good enough for travellers moving at
walking pace or a bit faster. They are rarely good enough for
traffic moving at up to 40mph in an environment where pedestrians
and cyclists share the space.

I guess the car must warp the light.

Guessing is all very well, but there's no substitute for knowledge.

In my world I do know that light does not warp around cars. I have to
guess about what happens in Nugent world.

You're the one doing the guessing.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good
contrast, able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Whenever that was, that was then. This is now. Headlights were
always advisable

You don't remember?

I do remember sodium lights. They weren't used everywhere (as you may
not remember).

Translation. If something was extremely common but not universal it
didn't exist.

Let me correct that for you: A journey rarely started, continued and
finished on roads solely lit by sodium lamps.

Even in a city, the vehicle's lighting has to be adequate in varied
lighting conditions. Very few roads were ever floodlit, whether by the
old inefficient sodium lamps or anything else. Sensible drivers prefer
to be self-reliant.

(and in my view should always have been compulsory) in any case.

You're confusing the two functions of lighting.

Not at all.

You provide no clues that you do. (*)

I do indeed provide no clues that I confuse the two functions of lighting.

I will leave you to work out the difference.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

Headlights don't "obliterate" (or even obscure) my vision.

You're either lucky or not observant.

Neither.

Given the pattern of the things
you say in your posts over the years, I don't think it is luck.

I don't mind what it is. I don't find headlights to be a problem
(provided they're dipped, of course). That has to be shared with most
people, because it's only cyclists who complain about vehicle lights,
which is sort of ironic, really.

You seem to have a particular street in mind. Wherever it is (and
assuming it isn't only inside your head), not all streets are lit to
a standard that will allow traffic to proceed without the use of
headlights.

If you don't feel safe you could slow down a bit.

Or use headlights, which fix the problem (as required by law - not
that law means much to cyclists).

The law *allows* use of sidelights under steetlamps...

....and makes their use compulsory in conditions of low or no light (even
during what is nominally daytime).

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

What are you on about?

When was the last time your carer let you out?

What are you on about?
Do you actually know what you're on about?

I do. It looks as though you haven't been near a road for at least 5 years.

Fairy lights?

What are you on about?

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a
couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly after
just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Much light is far better than a little light, and immeasurable
better then the total lack of light *some* road-users seem to
"think" is OK.

Wow, look at those goal posts move.


(*) Including this
A lot of light = best
Less light = not as good
No light (cyclist default) = bad.

What's wrong with that (to a normal person, I mean - not a cyclist)?

On 18/10/2019 13:55, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 11:31, Bod wrote:

It doesn't matter how efficient a power gathering system is,
nothing is 100% efficient.

Even if power could be converted with 100% efficiency, it still would
not be free, merely cheaper.

...


It does not militate against the case for the alternator or the case
against the generator. This is yet another improvement in vehicle
construction over the last few decades.

...

There comes a point - very soon - where power is wasted (see your own
point above re. nothing being 100% efficient). Reducing the wastage
(which an alternator does by comparison with a generator) has the same
effect as obtaining (some) power for free.

On top of the above collection of words not producing an English
sentence, it's rather stupid to bring dynamos into the argument.
Here is some simple maths.

.....

A pair of headlights consume 100W. Fuel contains about 34MJ/l, which the
engine burns with about 35% efficiency and the alternator converts with
about 75% efficiency.

A pair of headlights consuming 100W therefore require a litre in about
25 hours. Which could be 250 - 750 miles depending on the car's typical
duty.