Since you repeatedly choose not to cite the "rigorous studies" that you claim validate your points, that places you in the "just my opinion" category, no?
Here's that homework from December 2003 and January 2004 again. So far, you have an "Incomplete".
Over to you. We're waiting. Maybe "Geoff" can rationalize the lack of response.
Daniel Stern Light>
Daniel Stern Light>
On the aviation side of the TRB house, sequenced and random flashing strobes and landing lights (for pattern and low altitude use; helicopters especially, but Southwest uses them as well) have been used for years in anti-collision lighting (ACL) to good effect. Same for fixed ACL use (towers, etc.). Seems aviation adopted Voevodsky's theories for use against skyplane and groundplane lighting clutter.
Here's a secret for you: I spare myself the effort of creating a killfile entry unlessI find myself dealing with a low-grade moron. Near as I can tell, you're a high-grade moron, so I haven't bothered.
It's a marvelous idea to read the previous posts in a thread before you make your own contribution, lest you post something that's already been covered.
Not too sure what you mean by debate, since you and I weren't having one. Except, possibly, about your own mental faculties, but I think I've pretty much got a slam-dunk on that one. Or are you answering Ted's email today?
There was just a newspaper article about this. I think the numbers were
50ms vs 250ms and would result in a surprising 24 feet of extra warning (I assume at highway speeds) with the LED. That is what I remember from the article but I would not bet my life on my memory or their calculations.
Well, let's see here. In many states, the speed limit on rural interstates is 70MPH.
70MPH = (60 * 5280 feet/mile) = 369600 feet/hour.
369600feet/hour = (369600/ (60minutes * 60seconds)) = 102.67 feet/second. (rounding off to two decimal places)
There are 1000 ms in 1 second, of course. (duh.)
If you travel 102.67 feet in 1 second, in 250ms you travel 1/4 the distance: (.25 * 102.67) = 25.67 feet covered as the incandescent lamp comes up to full brightness
Again, travelling 102.67 feet in 1 second, in 50ms you travel 5/100ths the distance: (.05 * 102.67) = 5.13 feet. as the LED array comes up to full brightness
So, assuming: o You first notice either type of lamp only when it's at full brightness (debateable) o Both lamps are of equal brightness o Assume the same vehicle, one with an LED option and one without (unlikely) o You are the same distance away from the rear of the vehicle both times (the same amount of light is available to your retina at full, equal brightness) o You react perfectly each time (hah!) o There's perfect visibility both times (under whatever ideal conditions that consists of)
At our hypothetical 70 MPH, the difference is (25.67 feet- 5.13 feet) = you'd be warned 20.54 feet sooner. Somewhat longer than the typical carlength. (I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect you'd have to be going at least 80MPH to see 24 feet of difference.)
Yeah, I'd expect that could make a difference in the outcome of a collision avoidance opportunity. Of course, the actual outcome (do you avoid the crash?) is going to vary due to a whole lot of other criteria -- if you're 5 feet off the back of the leading car's bumper when the lead driver hits the brakes, LED warning isn't gonna save you, for example. Drag racers do well to react in 500ms, so there's got to be a law of diminishing returns somewhere factored in this as well. Finally, the lead vehicle could decelerate at different rates, you could decel at different rates, etc., etc., etc.
But, at least hypothetically, it could make a difference.
LEDs may lead to new car lighting Los Angeles Times (LED headlamps)
Light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, are almost as old as transistors. But technological advances in recent years have paved the way for a new generation of high-powered LED headlamps that will change auto styling and possibly improve safety.
Lumileds Lighting, a Silicon Valley firm that has pioneered high-intensity LEDs, announced last month that it would provide LEDs for daytime-running lights in the new Audi A8.
LED headlamps will begin appearing by 2006 or 2007 on new vehicles, most probably luxury and other high-end models, said Doug Silkwood, director of marketing at Lumileds.
Because LEDs are so much thinner than traditional headlamps, they will give automotive stylists new flexibility in designing front ends. Already, concept cars are being designed with all-LED lamps for exterior uses.
LEDs would offer several other advantages. Typically, they operate many times longer than traditional lights before needing replacement, and they are about twice as energy efficient. Japanese automakers have estimated that LED headlights alone could improve fuel efficiency by half a mile per gallon; I take that with a grain of salt because some people rarely drive at night.
Still, one big benefit of LEDs could come in the area of glare reduction, though they are such an unknown commodity that it's probably much too soon to say they will solve the growing safety problem of nighttime glare.
Of course, most of the collisions take place at significantly slower speeds than this.
There's not much more it seems that can be done to uglify the ass-end of cars with more, faster, bigger, lights, no matter how many statistical studies have been done - the ass end of modern cars already looks like a travelling Christmas tree going down the road, they can't find space to hang any more lights.
This is like the seat belt laws. A few years back the do-gooder crowd became utterly convinced that getting the states to pass a bunch of seat belt laws was going to save millions of lives because magically everyone was going to start buckling up just because a law was passed. They comissioned study after study and caused a lot of trouble. In the end it was easier to just let them have their way and of course, seatbelt use is still no better than it was before the laws, that's why they went to full restraint airbags.
I would change that to "statisitically, it would make a difference" because statistics is based on the assumption that over thousands of potential rear-end situations ***ALL*** of those variables that you mention would average out in the two groups of vehicles with incandescents and with LED's, and the one fixed difference (the time delay from contact closure to effective brightness) would show up as a correlation in the results (accident vs. no accident).
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Uh, sorry, Ted, wrong again. It wasn't a random group of "do-gooders"; it was the insurance industry that was tired of paying out claims to stupid folks who consistently greased themselves against their A-pillars by refusing to buckle up and then crashing. And the fact is, the compliance with the law increased to over 80% once it became a primary enforcement law here in MI, which is a big jump from the 70% usage that prevailed before the law was enacted. Not that I agree with the law, mind you, I don't. I don't think the average legislator is capable of the abstract thought necessary to enact laws that only limit freedom reasonably, and I'm pretty sure that the gene pool won't miss the idiots out there too stupid to buckle up.
But there's identifiable reasons why it came into being, and widely-circulated statistics on its effect. Go poke around the Michigan government website and you'll get facts and figures to spout off about rather than blather. Try:
formatting link
Sorry to confuse you with the facts along your way to (yet) another rant, though.
Dan, servers are not mirrored all at the same time. Some may be hours or even days behind. The previous post you referred to may not have been available to him when he made his post.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.