|
General_Failure posted:The Niva has the wiring for a rear fog light. It's just the light and the switch on the dash aren't there. I've considered other alternate uses but can't think of a good one. Work lights. That's what I use the rear fogs on the Rover for. I'm considering putting a white light up high above the door on a switch but tapped into the rear fogs so I can turn that on from the dash as well for reversing up to trailers and similar. Considering I've used the rear fogs exactly once for all of 10 minutes, I wouldn't miss them if they ended up being solely wired up as a work light that I couldn't use on the street.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2013 15:48 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 18:59 |
|
General_Failure posted:The Niva has the wiring for a rear fog light. It's just the light and the switch on the dash aren't there. I've considered other alternate uses but can't think of a good one. Plug in three big Hella aux lights facing backwards so you can give people a hint when they forget they've got their high beams on? (I'm sure a soviet fog light draws more amps than three western aux lights, so you're good to go.)
|
# ? Sep 20, 2013 16:26 |
|
some texas redneck posted:Every car I've driven with factory fogs (except for the one I own now) don't let you run the fogs without the low beams (but they do switch off with the high beams). It was easy to change the wiring on my Integra to allow the fogs to be turned on without the low beams though (factory wiring only powered the fog light switch with the low beams - snip that wire, splice the wire to the dash lighting switch, which would let you run the fogs anytime the parking lights were on). This must be a common modification for many different makes because I see cars driving at night with fogs but no headlights all the time around here. I don't understand it. Also, for most people around here, fog lights = extra headlights and they just leave them on all the time.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2013 16:26 |
|
Sviatoslav posted:I put in an additional fog light on the right side of my 855, so if someone is riding my rear end I flip the rear fogs and it looks like I'm break checking them. It works like 40% of the time... which is better than nothing. You, goon sir, are truly doing God's work.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2013 19:40 |
|
lazer_chicken posted:This must be a common modification for many different makes because I see cars driving at night with fogs but no headlights all the time around here. I don't understand it. Also, for most people around here, fog lights = extra headlights and they just leave them on all the time. I think its more likely that their headlights burned out and so they drive with the fogs thinking its good enough.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2013 20:07 |
|
Brigdh posted:I think its more likely that their headlights burned out and so they drive with the fogs thinking its good enough. Usually they drive with the high beams on if one or more regular headlights burns out. Or usually they just drive with the high beams on anyway.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2013 20:46 |
|
some texas redneck posted:Every car I've driven with factory fogs (except for the one I own now) don't let you run the fogs without the low beams (but they do switch off with the high beams). FWIW most cars sold in the US don't have real foglights anyways, they have auxiliary driving lights. A proper foglight is supposed to light the immediate area in front of the car with a low wedge of light intended to only illuminate the lane marker lines. Most "foglights" on cars in the US are just baby headlights mounted low on the car.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2013 21:00 |
|
The only place I know of that gets dangerous fog is the California Central Valley where the Tule fog rolls in and makes 5 basically impassable. It's particularly dangerous because you have a mix of people trying to go 80 and 40 on the same road with no visibility.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2013 21:26 |
|
Das Volk posted:The only place I know of that gets dangerous fog is the California Central Valley You can't seriously think that's the only place that gets dangerous fog in the US or in the world........ At the right time of year I can barely find my car in the driveway, and it gets even worse as I drive towards the river (not far away) and the bridges end up with about 20 foot visibility at times. One of these times includes the 10 minutes I actually used my rear fogs. It goes from "drivable" to "oh poo poo, this just got really dangerous" in a span of under 100 feet sometimes, so it's not like you can just say "yep, staying home until this burns off".
|
# ? Sep 20, 2013 21:38 |
|
FogHelmut posted:Usually they drive with the high beams on if one or more regular headlights burns out. Or usually they just drive with the high beams on anyway. but i thought the headlights werent on unless the little blue light on the dash came on!!! I have quite literally had people tell me that.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2013 21:39 |
|
Geoj posted:FWIW most cars sold in the US don't have real foglights anyways, they have auxiliary driving lights. A proper foglight is supposed to light the immediate area in front of the car with a low wedge of light intended to only illuminate the lane marker lines. Most "foglights" on cars in the US are just baby headlights mounted low on the car. Yeah the ones on my car are basically decoration.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2013 21:44 |
|
Not missing the lack of front fogs in my current car. I am being treated like poo poo by other road users a lot more since I started driving a a Beemer though.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2013 22:22 |
|
Cakefool posted:Not missing the lack of front fogs in my current car. I am being treated like poo poo by other road users a lot more since I started driving a a Beemer though. BMW xenon lights are awesome. I installed the Euro light switch in my E90 to enable the rear fogs. They were great in Vermont for snow and fog. In Philly, I think it's going to be defensive though.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2013 00:57 |
|
Shin-chan posted:This (illegality) can't be true because I owned a 2002 Olds Aurora and it had twin rear fog lamps. If it were against regulations it wouldn't be allowed to be imported or put onto domestic cars. Well, I did specify circa 1989, but I just had a look in the book and it's not actually as draconian as I remembered anyway. vv KozmoNaut posted:Doesn't stop people from running their front fogs all the time along with their low beams, either. I think they do it because "it looks cool" or because they think a bunch of near field light improves vision, when in fact it does the opposite. No Nissan made in the last 6 or 7 years can run fog lamps without the headlamps on. The fog lamp relay is powered by the headlamp relay. Probably runs to earlier models too, but I don't see much at work before '06 or so. It's a little annoying when doing light checks because the lows are always brighter than the fogs so the only indication is stuff at ground level to the sides changing brightness a little, gotta flip them a couple times to be sure.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2013 02:39 |
|
Where I live we have annual safety inspections that includes a check of headlight aim. Interestingly almost all of the vehicles I see with lights aimed far too high are BMWs and Audis that are still too new to have had their first proper inspection (by which I mean not at a dealership) - its like they come from the factory with the lights aimed 'gently caress you all' high.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2013 02:47 |
|
dissss posted:Where I live we have annual safety inspections that includes a check of headlight aim. The Niva's headlights look all cockeyed but I parked it in front of the shed and they actually are going where they should be. I have absolutely no idea what the deal is. I also find low beam is easier to see with than high beam. Part of me feels like they were wired backwards but I can neither confirm nor deny this. Nobody has ever flashed me. It just seems to be a better scatter on low.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2013 03:10 |
|
General_Failure posted:The Niva's headlights look all cockeyed but I parked it in front of the shed and they actually are going where they should be. I have absolutely no idea what the deal is. I also find low beam is easier to see with than high beam. Part of me feels like they were wired backwards but I can neither confirm nor deny this. Nobody has ever flashed me. It just seems to be a better scatter on low. Just a random suggestion but yours is an rhd conversion, I'm not sure whether they used different lamp units or just re-aimed the lhd units.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2013 12:14 |
|
Seems everyone here hates rear fogs, but in heavy fog or heavy rain/spray they're great. I get pissed off when people don't use them appropriatly in fog and spray. They make a big difference in visibility knowing what's ahead of you when you need it. I should really get around to wiring up my other one, wagon only has one wired up.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2013 17:12 |
|
Mooseykins posted:Seems everyone here hates rear fogs, but in heavy fog or heavy rain/spray they're great. I get pissed off when people don't use them appropriatly in fog and spray. They make a big difference in visibility knowing what's ahead of you when you need it. It's not about rear fogs, it's about idiots and dickbags. Don't hate the game, hate the players.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2013 18:37 |
|
Cakefool posted:Just a random suggestion but yours is an rhd conversion, I'm not sure whether they used different lamp units or just re-aimed the lhd units. Not the original headlights. It would have had open beams when it was made, but at some point fitted with sealed beams so I really have no idea.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2013 22:56 |
|
Cakefool posted:I am being treated like poo poo by other road users a lot more since I started driving a a Beemer though. Preventive self defense.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2013 00:38 |
|
Here are some of my favorite intersections. First we have the three bores of the Caldecott Tunnel, on Highway 24 between Oakland and Walnut Creek: The center bore switches direction around noon most days to flow in the direction of heaviest traffic. When the center bore is going southwest-to-northeast, note the area in the green square. Can you guess what about 1 in 4 cars in the left lane do here? Yes, that's right: suddenly merge with the right lane, because WOAH, the lanes just disappear! And there's a new lane on the left. There is no traffic merging in that left lane, becuase it's the contraflow lane, it connects to the north bore which is always flowing the opposite direction. There are also no signs warning you that the left lane is about to cross over a dotted line and/or disappear (depending on your perspective), and if you're in the leftmost lane, you need to very quickly and sharply cut across that line to avoid being forced into the right lane, since entering the actual tunnel is already a moderate left turn. Next we have the intersection of Noe and Market in the Castro district of San Francisco: This isn't that bad, there's a traffic light (well, several). But if you do what I often do and approach the intersection from Noe street at the bottom of the picture, turning right, you have two options: a hard right onto 16th street, or a soft right onto Market street. And, you have a protected green-arrow turn. Great! But! If you take that protected green arrow soft right onto Market, you pull out into the intersection and are suddenly confronted with a red light. They're the lights for northeast-bound traffic on Market, but you cannot see them from Noe, and it's a huge intersection, and man oh man does it seem like you're supposed to stop. But you're not. You're supposed to run that loving red light. Worse, there's a crosswalk and while the locals know what's what, there are plenty of tourists here in the summer and they look up and see the red light for Market traffic, cannot see the green arrow for Noe, and cannot see the cars on Noe, so they start to cross the loving intersection right in front of you. And if you DO stop for that red, you block traffic from like three different directions, and everyone yells at you. It is seriously hosed turning that right corner and actually being supposed to run that red light. Finally, we have the intersection of Sloat, Portola, Junipero Serra, St. Francis, and West Portal Avenue: It's actually just a five-way intersection, plus a light rail that runs down W. Portal and then gets its own non-road right of way to the southwest. What is hosed up here is the lane markings, especially inside the oval. If you approach from the west on Sloat, there are three left turning lanes. The leftmost one is for W. Portal, and it's fairly clear. When you get a green arrow, you keep hard left and guide yourself onto that street. But then there's the two "soft left" lanes for Portola. Look at that loving line on the road. If you are in the center lane, and you are looking at that line (as you would, as the driver) your lane widens... and widens... and uh, oh poo poo, you are now head-on into oncoming traffic! It seriously looks like your lane splits into two lanes and one of them goes the wrong way up that street. Also check out the people coming from the top-right towards the bottom-center (portola on to Junipero Serra): there's three lanes, but where do they go? The white concrete of the light rail has no markings on it, most of the dotted lines just disappear completely, and for a good 50 feet or more of Junipero Serra it looks like there's only two lanes! And if you're not familiar, you might easily just head right down the train tracks instead. It is a loving mess, and this is after they've gone over and re-done that intersection in the last 10 years. I don't think I've ever been through the intersection without seeing someone do a last-second swerve, slow way down, accidentally change lanes in the intersection, or otherwise gently caress it up in some way. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Sep 22, 2013 |
# ? Sep 22, 2013 08:04 |
|
So recently, I've noticed locally there is little difference in folks who use their turn signals and those who don't. Either way they're going to cut you off in traffic. The advantage in those who use them is you have about 1 second warning before they side swipe you.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2013 18:20 |
|
If it is dark or foggy, run your goddamned lowbeams at least. Your fogs don't turn your taillights on. Remember, your lights are as much for other people to see you as for you to see everything else. That being said, if you run daytime running lights, you're endangering motorcyclists. The whole point of bikes running lights in the day is so that car drivers give them the extra attention they need (because they're smaller). When cars run DRLs, it desensitizes drivers, and further tends to make them think oncoming bikes are just cars with a light out. Similarly if you're zipping up behind a bike at night, don't burn your brights. Bike mirrors have no dimming function and often shake like mad, so you're strobing right into the rider's face. If you're wondering why Racy McNinGSXR doesn't seem to be hauling rear end down those unlit mountain passes at night like during daytime, it's because our lovely lowbeams are glorified DRLs, our highbeams somehow antagonize everyone in the known universe and the lean geometry of turning motorcycles means that light gets thrown up and to the outside on every curve, where it's least useful.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2013 20:29 |
|
Snowdens Secret posted:That being said, if you run daytime running lights, you're endangering motorcyclists. The whole point of bikes running lights in the day is so that car drivers give them the extra attention they need (because they're smaller). When cars run DRLs, it desensitizes drivers, and further tends to make them think oncoming bikes are just cars with a light out. I'm pretty sure drivers thinking a bike is just a car with a burned out headlight has been an issue for decades, well before DRLs became common.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2013 20:31 |
|
Snowdens Secret posted:That being said, if you run daytime running lights, you're endangering motorcyclists. The whole point of bikes running lights in the day is so that car drivers give them the extra attention they need (because they're smaller). When cars run DRLs, it desensitizes drivers, and further tends to make them think oncoming bikes are just cars with a light out. Yeah I'll get right on that, considering my DD is a late model GM and the DRL function is hardwired into the computer. While I'm at it, do you just want to outright ban all vehicles with more than three wheels from the road entirely? Because it really seems like anything you do in a car besides sitting in your driveway with the engine off is "endangering motorcyclists."
|
# ? Sep 22, 2013 20:50 |
|
Snowdens Secret posted:That being said, if you run daytime running lights, you're endangering motorcyclists. The whole point of bikes running lights in the day is so that car drivers give them the extra attention they need (because they're smaller). When cars run DRLs, it desensitizes drivers, and further tends to make them think oncoming bikes are just cars with a light out. I don't think this is true. DRLs or low beams are mandatory here, and I don't think it desensitizes drivers. Most motorcycle-related accidents here are specifically because drivers mistake them for scooters and think they're slower than they are.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2013 21:10 |
|
Leperflesh posted:SF drivin' The most wonderful part of driving in San Francisco is the eensy-weensy little traffic lights on poles waaaaay over to the left and right of the roads where you can barely see them.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2013 22:52 |
|
Snowdens Secret posted:That being said, if you run daytime running lights, you're endangering motorcyclists. The whole point of bikes running lights in the day is so that car drivers give them the extra attention they need (because they're smaller). When cars run DRLs, it desensitizes drivers, and further tends to make them think oncoming bikes are just cars with a light out.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2013 23:36 |
|
You Am I posted:That's a pretty long bow to draw, especially since it is law in EU nations to have DRL on all new cars. As bike-centric as his post is, he's got a point in there somewhere. Basically, before DRLs, vehicles that needed extra care paid to them ran their lights in the daytime. Anyone remember seeing heavy trucks with the bumper sticker "Our lights are on for safety."? Trucks and bikes move differently to cars, so it's understandable to want your average mouth-breathing motorist to realize what they are and think about it. Since DRLs proliferated, though, such vehicles are no longer uniquely identified by lights. Furthermore, many vehicles have poorly designed DRLs that are just too bright. I've had to dim my mirror in the day because of some of them! All the data that says they're good comes from northern countries where there is generally more darkness, snow, and emptyness than average, so having lights on everything, all the time, can be helpful. In Florida, though, for example, I'd posit that it's more important to let the vehicles that move in surprising ways be called out.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2013 23:54 |
|
A Swedish study showed car-bike accidents went up 4% after auto DRLs were introduced. A Norwegian study showed stable car-bike accidents while all other bike accidents went down - probably meaning more car-bike accidents per bike mile ridden, all other things being equal. A Japanese study also showed negative effects. Motorcycle associations have been fighting DRL laws in EU and US for ages; obviously if you live in EU where they're mandated it's not your fault for burning them.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 00:32 |
|
Yeah I am still keeping my DRL because not only does my truck not give me a choice, but studies have also shown they reduce accident numbers for large vehicles as well. I will do my part to reduce motorcycle accidents by continuing to give them lots of room and being aware of their existence unlike many other drives.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 00:47 |
|
Atticus_1354 posted:Yeah I am still keeping my DRL because not only does my truck not give me a choice, but studies have also shown they reduce accident numbers for large vehicles as well. I will do my part to reduce motorcycle accidents by continuing to give them lots of room and being aware of their existence unlike many other drives. If it's a GM, of certain years, at least, you can turn them off by cycling the "dome override" switch twice rapidly. My own Chevy actually had 2 dedicated DRL bulbs, so I just pulled them. Yours may be different, that trick didn't work on one of my dad's trucks.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 03:36 |
|
Red_October_7000 posted:Trucks and bikes move differently to cars, so it's understandable to want your average mouth-breathing motorist to realize what they are and think about it. As completely brainless and idiotic as the average driver is, a truck (and especially a semi) is friggin' huge and very obviously not a car. I don't believe for a second that people would overlook them just because they weren't running lights. Similarly with bikes, visually they're very obviously not cars, but they have the distinct disadvantage of being small, so I can see why they'd be overlooked by the average driver. On the whole, I like DRLs/mandatory lights. They allow me to more easily spot the average gray car, driving on average gray roads in average gray weather. It also means that bad drivers don't forget to switch on their lights in inclement weather, although the modern trend of DRLs with no rear lights has sort of killed that advantage. As a motorcycle rider, this means cars are more visible to me, allowing giving me more time to react and/or place myself better on the road. I don't rely on drivers seeing me, although I'm sure riding a bright orange bike helps too KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Sep 23, 2013 |
# ? Sep 23, 2013 07:50 |
|
KozmoNaut posted:although the modern trend of DRLs with no rear lights has sort of killed that advantage. A thousand times this. A modern set of rear LED-based DRL can't actually draw enough power to even be measurable on the mileage, can they? What's worse is that half these cars have a switch you can flip, and there'll be DRL all around, but people can't be assed. None of those will ever remember to switch on their lights in dusk, rain, dark mornings/afternoons in anything not summer etc... I personally think that was a major blunder allowing that, but I think it's an EU-wide thing, so All Hail Brussels, I guess... just wish that the Po-Po would start cracking down on this.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 08:01 |
|
bolind posted:A thousand times this. A modern set of rear LED-based DRL can't actually draw enough power to even be measurable on the mileage, can they? Considering that the average incandescent rear lights barely even draw enough power to be measurable on mileage, LEDs would be completely within the margin of error on mileage calculations. The increase in inclement weather safety would completely outweigh it.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 09:28 |
|
Red_October_7000 posted:If it's a GM, of certain years, at least, you can turn them off by cycling the "dome override" switch twice rapidly. My own Chevy actually had 2 dedicated DRL bulbs, so I just pulled them. Yours may be different, that trick didn't work on one of my dad's trucks. Some GMs with automatic headlights have an "Auto Off" position on the headlight switch, though it's a momentary contact position. I can turn the switch to "auto off" when I start the car, and the DRLs stay off (as do the automatic headlghts). You have to cycle it every time you start the car. Lower trim versions don't have automatic headlights (AFAIK anyway), I'm not sure how you turn off the DRLs on those (there's no dome override switch on this model - each interior light has its own switch, much like Nissans and Hondas). My Saturn just runs the front turn signals for the DRLs though (bright filament in a 4157NA bulb); there's absolutely no mistaking it for any form of lighting at night. This is on a 2006 Saturn Ion (which is basically a Cobalt in drag); I believe all Ions worked like this. I'm not sure how the Cobalt handles DRLs to be honest.. randomidiot fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Sep 23, 2013 |
# ? Sep 23, 2013 09:41 |
|
Snowdens Secret posted:A Swedish study showed car-bike accidents went up 4% after auto DRLs were introduced. A Norwegian study showed stable car-bike accidents while all other bike accidents went down - probably meaning more car-bike accidents per bike mile ridden, all other things being equal. A Japanese study also showed negative effects. Motorcycle associations have been fighting DRL laws in EU and US for ages; obviously if you live in EU where they're mandated it's not your fault for burning them. So 4% of drivers are okay with crashing into other cars for whatever reason?
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 11:38 |
|
KozmoNaut posted:As completely brainless and idiotic as the average driver is, a truck (and especially a semi) is friggin' huge and very obviously not a car. I don't believe for a second that people would overlook them just because they weren't running lights. You'd think something the size of a small house driving down the road would be hard to miss, but you underestimate the obliviousness of some people. I've driven commercial trucks in Ohio, trust me on this.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 13:54 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 18:59 |
|
Yeah if you think people are stupid about remembering to turn their headlights on while driving, try getting them to remember to turn their DRLs off. Not gonna happen. I got stuck behind some idiot in the left lane doing the same speed as the person in the middle lane for ten miles on the mass pike today. Predawn, dark grey metallic car, very asphalt-colored, no lights on, puttering along at 67mph. They completely ignored it when I finally got past them on the right, put my hand out the window and pointed them over at the middle lane. Maybe I should have used my middle finger to do the pointing
|
# ? Sep 23, 2013 15:01 |