Should I have the car looked at????
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
Tegger wrote:
> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in
>> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue.
----------------------
> So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're probably
> aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly into my rear-view
> mirror...
------------------------
Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are aimed
like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's highways, I
don't know.
'Curly'
> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in
>> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue.
----------------------
> So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're probably
> aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly into my rear-view
> mirror...
------------------------
Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are aimed
like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's highways, I
don't know.
'Curly'
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
Tegger wrote:
> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in
>> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue.
----------------------
> So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're probably
> aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly into my rear-view
> mirror...
------------------------
Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are aimed
like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's highways, I
don't know.
'Curly'
> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in
>> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue.
----------------------
> So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're probably
> aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly into my rear-view
> mirror...
------------------------
Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are aimed
like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's highways, I
don't know.
'Curly'
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in
news:Xns99AF64E3AC6E1tegger@207.14.116.130:
> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in
> news:13evio92s1vkc15@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> "motsco_" wrote
>>
>>> Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it
>>> checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would
>>> never see.
>>
>> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're probably
> aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly into my
> rear-view mirror...
>
how about those pickups that have the rear dragging lower than the front?
(intentionally,via hydraulics)
Think they get their headlights realigned?
If I were a cop,I'd be nailing them every time for it,too.
Those "Bigfoot" type trucks also need ticketing;inherently unsafe.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:Xns99AF64E3AC6E1tegger@207.14.116.130:
> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in
> news:13evio92s1vkc15@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> "motsco_" wrote
>>
>>> Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it
>>> checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would
>>> never see.
>>
>> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're probably
> aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly into my
> rear-view mirror...
>
how about those pickups that have the rear dragging lower than the front?
(intentionally,via hydraulics)
Think they get their headlights realigned?
If I were a cop,I'd be nailing them every time for it,too.
Those "Bigfoot" type trucks also need ticketing;inherently unsafe.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in
news:Xns99AF64E3AC6E1tegger@207.14.116.130:
> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in
> news:13evio92s1vkc15@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> "motsco_" wrote
>>
>>> Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it
>>> checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would
>>> never see.
>>
>> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're probably
> aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly into my
> rear-view mirror...
>
how about those pickups that have the rear dragging lower than the front?
(intentionally,via hydraulics)
Think they get their headlights realigned?
If I were a cop,I'd be nailing them every time for it,too.
Those "Bigfoot" type trucks also need ticketing;inherently unsafe.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:Xns99AF64E3AC6E1tegger@207.14.116.130:
> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in
> news:13evio92s1vkc15@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> "motsco_" wrote
>>
>>> Since your headlights may now be pointed at Jupiter, yes, have it
>>> checked. An expert will notice things that the untrained eye would
>>> never see.
>>
>> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an issue.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're probably
> aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly into my
> rear-view mirror...
>
how about those pickups that have the rear dragging lower than the front?
(intentionally,via hydraulics)
Think they get their headlights realigned?
If I were a cop,I'd be nailing them every time for it,too.
Those "Bigfoot" type trucks also need ticketing;inherently unsafe.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
motsco_ <motsco_@interbaun.com> wrote in
news:13evn8lsonvc1d9@corp.supernews.com:
> Tegger wrote:
>
>> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in
>>> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an
>>> issue.
>
> ----------------------
>> So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're
>> probably aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly
>> into my rear-view mirror...
> ------------------------
>
> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are
> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's
> highways, I don't know.
>
I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change,
although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it.
The online copy was last updated in 2005.
<http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps>
From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler
products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far),
it appears to me that
1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and
2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness
instead of 80% as previously.
Observe for yourself.
The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point
where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid
being dazzled. They're absolutely awful.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:13evn8lsonvc1d9@corp.supernews.com:
> Tegger wrote:
>
>> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in
>>> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an
>>> issue.
>
> ----------------------
>> So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're
>> probably aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly
>> into my rear-view mirror...
> ------------------------
>
> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are
> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's
> highways, I don't know.
>
I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change,
although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it.
The online copy was last updated in 2005.
<http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps>
From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler
products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far),
it appears to me that
1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and
2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness
instead of 80% as previously.
Observe for yourself.
The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point
where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid
being dazzled. They're absolutely awful.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
motsco_ <motsco_@interbaun.com> wrote in
news:13evn8lsonvc1d9@corp.supernews.com:
> Tegger wrote:
>
>> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in
>>> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an
>>> issue.
>
> ----------------------
>> So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're
>> probably aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly
>> into my rear-view mirror...
> ------------------------
>
> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are
> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's
> highways, I don't know.
>
I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change,
although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it.
The online copy was last updated in 2005.
<http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps>
From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler
products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far),
it appears to me that
1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and
2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness
instead of 80% as previously.
Observe for yourself.
The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point
where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid
being dazzled. They're absolutely awful.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:13evn8lsonvc1d9@corp.supernews.com:
> Tegger wrote:
>
>> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote in
>>> Jupiter's fairly low in the sky right now, so it may not be an
>>> issue.
>
> ----------------------
>> So if you're driving something like a Ford Expedition, you're
>> probably aimed directly at Jupiter. Which coincides with directly
>> into my rear-view mirror...
> ------------------------
>
> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are
> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's
> highways, I don't know.
>
I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change,
although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it.
The online copy was last updated in 2005.
<http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps>
From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler
products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far),
it appears to me that
1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and
2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness
instead of 80% as previously.
Observe for yourself.
The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point
where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid
being dazzled. They're absolutely awful.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
Tegger wrote:
>> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are
>> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's
>> highways, I don't know.
>>
>
>
> I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change,
> although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it.
> The online copy was last updated in 2005.
> <http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps>
>
> From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler
> products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far),
> it appears to me that
> 1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and
> 2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness
> instead of 80% as previously.
>
> Observe for yourself.
>
> The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point
> where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid
> being dazzled. They're absolutely awful.
-------------------------------
The car makers probably cried to the Government that they couldn't
figure out how to build an 80% module that wouldn't cost too much or
burn the vehicle to the ground.
Jackasses.
>> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are
>> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's
>> highways, I don't know.
>>
>
>
> I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change,
> although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it.
> The online copy was last updated in 2005.
> <http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps>
>
> From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler
> products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far),
> it appears to me that
> 1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and
> 2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness
> instead of 80% as previously.
>
> Observe for yourself.
>
> The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point
> where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid
> being dazzled. They're absolutely awful.
-------------------------------
The car makers probably cried to the Government that they couldn't
figure out how to build an 80% module that wouldn't cost too much or
burn the vehicle to the ground.
Jackasses.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
Tegger wrote:
>> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are
>> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's
>> highways, I don't know.
>>
>
>
> I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change,
> although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it.
> The online copy was last updated in 2005.
> <http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps>
>
> From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler
> products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far),
> it appears to me that
> 1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and
> 2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness
> instead of 80% as previously.
>
> Observe for yourself.
>
> The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point
> where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid
> being dazzled. They're absolutely awful.
-------------------------------
The car makers probably cried to the Government that they couldn't
figure out how to build an 80% module that wouldn't cost too much or
burn the vehicle to the ground.
Jackasses.
>> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are
>> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's
>> highways, I don't know.
>>
>
>
> I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change,
> although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it.
> The online copy was last updated in 2005.
> <http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/m/mvsa/regulations/mvsrg/100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps>
>
> From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler
> products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far),
> it appears to me that
> 1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and
> 2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness
> instead of 80% as previously.
>
> Observe for yourself.
>
> The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point
> where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid
> being dazzled. They're absolutely awful.
-------------------------------
The car makers probably cried to the Government that they couldn't
figure out how to build an 80% module that wouldn't cost too much or
burn the vehicle to the ground.
Jackasses.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
motsco_ <motsco_@interbaun.com> wrote in
news:13f0hl5dmcfmd0f@corp.supernews.com:
> Tegger wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are
>>> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's
>>> highways, I don't know.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change,
>> although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it.
>> The online copy was last updated in 2005.
>> <http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations...ulations/mvsrg
>> /100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps>
>>
>> From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler
>> products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far),
>> it appears to me that
>> 1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and
>> 2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness
>> instead of 80% as previously.
>>
>> Observe for yourself.
>>
>> The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point
>> where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid
>> being dazzled. They're absolutely awful.
>
> -------------------------------
>
> The car makers probably cried to the Government that they couldn't
> figure out how to build an 80% module that wouldn't cost too much or
> burn the vehicle to the ground.
>
> Jackasses.
>
That's unfair. Unless you mean the government is the jackass.
The automakers had no part in DRLs at all; it was forced upon them. Just
like those 200mph bombs that used to be in your steering wheel.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:13f0hl5dmcfmd0f@corp.supernews.com:
> Tegger wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are
>>> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's
>>> highways, I don't know.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change,
>> although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it.
>> The online copy was last updated in 2005.
>> <http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations...ulations/mvsrg
>> /100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps>
>>
>> From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler
>> products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far),
>> it appears to me that
>> 1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and
>> 2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness
>> instead of 80% as previously.
>>
>> Observe for yourself.
>>
>> The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point
>> where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid
>> being dazzled. They're absolutely awful.
>
> -------------------------------
>
> The car makers probably cried to the Government that they couldn't
> figure out how to build an 80% module that wouldn't cost too much or
> burn the vehicle to the ground.
>
> Jackasses.
>
That's unfair. Unless you mean the government is the jackass.
The automakers had no part in DRLs at all; it was forced upon them. Just
like those 200mph bombs that used to be in your steering wheel.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Should I have the car looked at????
motsco_ <motsco_@interbaun.com> wrote in
news:13f0hl5dmcfmd0f@corp.supernews.com:
> Tegger wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are
>>> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's
>>> highways, I don't know.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change,
>> although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it.
>> The online copy was last updated in 2005.
>> <http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations...ulations/mvsrg
>> /100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps>
>>
>> From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler
>> products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far),
>> it appears to me that
>> 1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and
>> 2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness
>> instead of 80% as previously.
>>
>> Observe for yourself.
>>
>> The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point
>> where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid
>> being dazzled. They're absolutely awful.
>
> -------------------------------
>
> The car makers probably cried to the Government that they couldn't
> figure out how to build an 80% module that wouldn't cost too much or
> burn the vehicle to the ground.
>
> Jackasses.
>
That's unfair. Unless you mean the government is the jackass.
The automakers had no part in DRLs at all; it was forced upon them. Just
like those 200mph bombs that used to be in your steering wheel.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:13f0hl5dmcfmd0f@corp.supernews.com:
> Tegger wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, Just like the new JEEPS in Canada. Full-blast DRL's that are
>>> aimed like high beams. Who lets this crap operate on Canada's
>>> highways, I don't know.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I believe there has been a federal government regulatory change,
>> although the online copy of CMVSS-108 does not appear to show it.
>> The online copy was last updated in 2005.
>> <http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations...ulations/mvsrg
>> /100/mvsr108.html#Daytime_Running_Lamps>
>>
>> From my observation of ALL new Canadian cars (not just Chrysler
>> products, although Chryslers have the brightest ones by far),
>> it appears to me that
>> 1) auxiliary lamps may no longer be used for DRLs, and
>> 2) main high beams must now be used, and at 100% brightness
>> instead of 80% as previously.
>>
>> Observe for yourself.
>>
>> The new ones are uncomfortably, intensely bright, to the point
>> where I have to look away (or turn my mirror to "night") to avoid
>> being dazzled. They're absolutely awful.
>
> -------------------------------
>
> The car makers probably cried to the Government that they couldn't
> figure out how to build an 80% module that wouldn't cost too much or
> burn the vehicle to the ground.
>
> Jackasses.
>
That's unfair. Unless you mean the government is the jackass.
The automakers had no part in DRLs at all; it was forced upon them. Just
like those 200mph bombs that used to be in your steering wheel.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
69z-28
Automotive Pictures & videos
37
Apr 3, 2006 08:31 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
