This is not the group for this discussion but the short answer is (and I was
in US and NATO nuclear positions) that the western powers have developed a
"two-man" control system that does not let even the head of state to
unilaterally "push the button."  Even in the famous Nixon rages, it was
known that he couldn't issue a unilateral order.

The difference is that the dictators of North Korea and Iran have no such
limitation, and they have both declared (don't ask me for a cite, I don't
want to get into this) that they will be going to war when they have nuclear
weapons.

Eggsactly. ;-)

Of course you could argue there are no 'safe hands' for a nuclear
capability.

Dave Plowman wrote...

Kim Jong-il may well not represent a safe pair of hands to hold a Nuclear
capability but I can see some confusion arising from the assumption that GW
Bush does!

David

The US tested from around '45 to '62  some 1054 devices. So North Korea
might have quite some way to go to catch up.

Sometime in the 1960s?

However Nagasaki was some test wasn't it?

Sir Hugh of Bognor

The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it!

Hugh Gundersen
hsg@h-gee.co.uk
Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK

When did that occur?

Did they do the same when the US last tested a nuclear device?

To dither around for a week trying to decide whether to *strongly
reprimand* or *firmly censure* North Korea, as it seems.

What /IS/ the UN's job? Last time I checked, the UN was useless, anyway.

The latter is not the UN's job.

Thanks for that comprehensive response.

So Dan, which do you think is going to be more difficult; getting the UN to
impose world peace, or getting the UN to reconcile differences between US
and ECE lighting requirements in our lifetime?

Richard.

That's not quite true as written. The world *has* automotive lighting
standards. Two of them: USA and ECE. Most of the world requires or
accepts ECE-compliant automotive lighting and prohibits USA-compliant
equipment; the US prohibits ECE and requires USA.

Yes.

Yes, but there's a terminology problem here. What we are talking about
in this thread as "city lights" or "parking lights" are properly called
*front position lamps* in ECE regulations and "parking lamps" in USA
regulations. There is another function, properly called "parking lamps"
in ECE regulations. This is the left-side-only / right-side-only front
and rear lighting that can be switched on by the driver, as called for
in the German road code (StVZO) when the vehicle is parked in certain
kinds of streets after dark. ECE "parking lamps" are generally required
to be white to the front and red to the rear, but may in some
configurations be amber.

USA and ECE regulations both require red rear reflectors.

USA regulations have required amber front and red rear sidemarker
lights _and_ reflectors on all vehicles since 1/1/70. In addition to
improving side conspicuity by displaying the presence, position and
direction of vehicles circulating in traffic after dark, the sidemarker
reflectors serve the same function as the ECE "parking lamps" (i.e.,
provide parked-vehicle conspicuity in dark narrow roads). The US method
is better in this case, for it is passive -- no action required by the
driver to switch on -- and it consumes no power.

ECE regulations require sidemarker lights on vehicles over 6m long, and
permit but don't require them on vehicles under 6m long. They are
required to emit amber light, except that a vehicle's rearmost
sidemarkers may emit red light if they are grouped, combined, or
reciprocally incorporated with the taillamp, the rear end-outline
marker lamp, the rear fog lamp, the brake lamp, or it is grouped or has
part of the light  emitting surface in common with the rear reflector.
Most ECE-spec vehicles that have sidemarkers have amber front and rear
ones. The new Citroën C6 has amber front and rear sidemarkers even
though the rear ones are built into the rear lamp cluster (and
therefore could legally emit red light). But, many vehicles which in
their US-spec configurations create the red rear sidemarker function by
means of a wraparound red lens providing a "side view" of the bulb,
likewise have the same setup in their ECE-spec configurations. Many BMW
and Mercedes models have such a setup.

As for side retroreflectors: They are, as already mentioned, mandatory
in the US on all vehicles. Amber front and intermediate, red rearmost.
They are mandatory under ECE regulations on vehicles over 6m long,
optional on vehicles under 6m long, and the ECE color requirement is
amber, but the rearmost side retroreflector may be red if it is grouped
or has part of the light emitting surface in
common with the rear position lamp, the rear end-outline marker lamp,
the rear fog lamp, the brake lamp or the red rearmost sidemarker lamp.
Many vehicles which in their US-spec configurations have the red side
retroreflector built into the side of the rear lamp cluster lens also
have this configuration in their ECE models. Examples abound from BMW,
Mercedes, Chrysler, Volvo and other makers.

I agree with you that amber rear turn signals are an utterly basic
component of a proper automotive lighting system, and I agree with you
that it's shameful to treat safety devices as stylistic toys, but
having just returned the other day from a large automotive lighting
technology congress in France, I can say you haven't got the whole
story. I spoke with the BMW exterior lighting chief, and he told me
they wanted to use the same type of amber rear signal on their
US-market E90 3er as they use everywhere else in the world, but the US
DOT objected. This type of "hidden" amber rear signal uses a clear bulb
with a green plastic balloon over it, all behind a rose-red (dark pink)
lens. The result is a lamp that looks red when off, but shines amber
when on. It's subtractive color mixing. The technique has been in use
for about 13 years or so -- no problem, such signals work fine and
don't notably degrade with age or use. But, the DOT said the green
plastic for the balloon was not on the list of approved plastic
materials for use in car lights, and they kept saying "no!" or simply
stalling and not answering at all regardless of how much test data BMW
submitted. Finally DOT said "OK", but by then it was too late; in order
to meet production schedules, BMW had to make an alternate choice for
the US market. They could've gone to a plain amber lens, or a clear
lens with amber bulb, but for whatever reason (probably related to
tooling cost), the red lens was their emergency "Plan B".  This is the
same reason why the first-year Audi A8 had these
green-ballon/pink-lens/amber-light rear turn signals, but subsequent
years had red lenses: DOT bitched about the green balloons being made
out of an unapproved plastic.

The situation is different with Audi: On some of their present car
designs, they couldn't have an amber rear turn signal without the red
brake/tail lamps being too small to comply with US surface area
requirements, so the only choices were to redesign the rear lamps
entirely (larger - not approved by the stylists) or have a red rear
turn signal for the North American market. This is the same reason why
older BMW 5er wagons had red rear turn signals. Other Audi models have
plenty of rear lamp area to have an amber turn signal, but as Audi's
chief of exterior lighting explained, "if some of your vehicles have
red and some have amber, this does not look like a coherent line of
vehicles. I don't like red rear signals, but they're just as legal as
amber in North America."

I didn't get a chance to ask about the MINI's red rear signals; that's
neither a materials nor a surface area problem.

Honda, Toyota and Subaru are actually markedly *worse*, together with
Ford, GM and Chrysler: All their models have rear lamp designs with
ample area for amber rear signals, and they don't tend to use materials
that DOT gets itchy about -- they use red signals in North America for
specious "customer preference" reasons (have you ever been asked to
vote?) or because red ones are cheaper to make and "show us the pile of
dead bodies indicating that amber is better!".

No, they aren't. They play with it, back and forth, red to amber and
back to red, as a stylistic toy. The newest Jeeps all have red, after
many years of using amber, for instance.

Red ones would be almost marginally tolerable if they were all the
combination brake/turn type, but immediately-adjacent,
colorimetrically- and photometrically-identical separate red brake and
turn lights duelling with each other make it very difficult to acquire
the vehicle's signalling messages quickly and accurately in traffic.
It's known that following drivers react significantly more quickly and
accurately to a vehicles *brake* lamps if the vehicle's turn signals
are amber rather than red, but nobody's bothered doing a study in
actual traffic, so while all the regulators know red ones are dumb and
amber ones are good, the automakers' lobbyists prevent legislating for
amber rear signals in North America. "Show us the pile of dead bodies!"
(the Ford guy actually said "It's the only light that flashes on the
back of the car, why does it need to be a different color?".)

DS

Back on subject. Standards are useful and the world lacks standards. In North America front amber colored lights are most often used as DRL's and parking lights and turn signals and front marker lights, often from the same unit.

In Europe amber is typically only used for flashing turn signals, and DRL's and front marker lights (be they called city lights or parking lights, etc.), are white.

But North America mandates side reflectors and rear reflectors, amber in the front and red in the rear. This is not required or even permitted in many countries and I have even seen amber rear side reflectors in Italy.

German manufactures are the worse in North America in having eliminated amber rear turn signals to make the vehicles look more American. BMW/Mini, VW/Audi just don't care about providing this safety feature to the drivers of North America. Honda is not far behind in this trend. The irony is that Chrysler is slowly adding this feature across its line here in North America.

Richard.

Or the multi-tasker who lost control on a 2-lane road this past July.  She
was drinking coffee, using her computer and cell phone and eating a snack.
That person hit two people on bicycles, killed one, put the other in the
hospital and ruined her own life.   My wife was on the same bike trip; but
won't be doing that again.

Too bad.

You can't legislate common sense and what about smart people whose
priorities are screwed up and just don't get it?  I'd like to see devices in
cars that disable the car when drivers aren't paying attention.

TKM

Hear, hear!  Like the woman I saw get into her car yesterday who
had to dial someone on her cell phone before she even started
the engine!  Boy I wish cells were illegal in moving vehicles.

i have one for all of you ... how about everyone on this planet learns
how to drive better and start paying more atention to what thier doing
instead of driving like a.ses all the time ... then we wouldnt need ..
DRL's or parking lights ... or ne of the other bullshit on our cars
that .. lets face it makes them look ridiculus ..

My Yamaha XTZ750 has a small bulb in the lower part of the headlight
reflector, my BMW E34 with projector headlights has a bulb in the upper
part of the headlight, and my Camaro has separate lights in the bumper
cover (shared with the turn signal, side marker lights, and DRLs). All
of these lights are what I call parking lights. You may call them
whatever you want, but the point of the matter is that it's illegal to
drive around with nothing but them on. Of course, the are allowed to be
on in combination with the headlights, fog lights, etc.

All new passenger vehicles in the US, and Europe, must be equipped with
parking lights. That's the law.

I don't know where you live, but here the weather isn't just hot and
sunny. There's rain, overcast, fog, snow, etc. and in all of those
situations high beam DRLs are too bright. Likewise during dusk and dawn.
"Angle eye" DRLs, just like the LED DRLs on Audi's, are a great idea on
the new E90 IMO.

I'm sure you do, but there's no way you can get high beam DRLs approved
as DRLs in "ECE-land". IIRC the maximum light from DRLs in Europe is 800
cd, while in NA it's 7000 cd. That should tell you something...

Ulf

Please try to comprehend.  Parking lights and city lights are two
different things.  Parking lights are used when the car is parked
(obviously) in an attempt to keep it from being hit by passing
motorists.  City lights were intended to be used in lieu of headlights
when operating in certain designated city limits, where the streetlights
 supposedly were adequate, to prevent glare to oncoming drivers.  That
practice is obsolete AFAIK, but the "city lights" are still sometimes
found on some cars and are used as parking lights.

There are no requirements to have or use parking lights or city lights
anywhere in the US that I am aware of.  Having *any* lights on when a
car is parked is not common practice here.  What is required are
"running lights" which are usually the same lamps that you might call
"parking lights" except they are illuminated while driving so that other
drivers can get a sense of the width of the vehicle, especially in the
event of a burnt out headlamp.

High beams even at full voltage are not too bright to be used as DRLs
when they are intended to be used, DURING THE DAY!!!  They are run at
reduced level to save the headlamps from burning out, not to decrease
glare to oncoming drivers.  During daylight hours your pupils are
adjusted to the higher ambient light and glare from headlights is not an
issue.  You may be irritated by these headlights, but you know they are
there, so they are accomplishing their goal.  Running around during the
day with just angel eyes on is akin to having no DRLs as nobody will be
alerted to your presence by them.

If you're saying that you are using your DRLs at night (instead of your
headlights) and that is when there is a glare problem, then you are
obviously using your lights incorrectly.  In most cars, when operating
on DRLs there are no rear or running lights on, which is obviously
against the law at night.

Do you have some evidence that high beam running lights are illegal
everywhere except North America?  I kind of doubt that this is true.

Please keep up. On the "older" BMW's they're used as parking lights
only, but starting on the new E90 coupe they'll be used as DRLs too. And
most countries in the world require parking lights, even the US, so
they're not reserved for "obscure European places."

No, they're not. High beams, even at a reduced voltage, are *too* bright
to be used with oncoming traffic. They're also illegal outside NA, why
do you think that is..?

Ulf

"Angle" (sic) eyes are not DRLs.  I suppose that they they take the
place of "city lights" in those obscure European places that still
require such, but they are most certainly NOT DRLs.

DRLs are *supposed* to be obnoxious.  If they aren't getting your
attention, they aren't doing what they are intended to do...

Exactly.

They're more than fairly bright, they're way too bright to be used as DRLs.

Yup, GM likes to equip Saturns with them. Fortunately a few new BMW's
have "angle eyes" DRLs. I assume this is mostly due to Audi's successful
LED DRLs.

Ulf

The best option is a set of lights specifically designed to be used as
running lights, i.e., with the appropriate intensity and beam pattern.

Yes, they are fairly bright, and annoyingly distractive in my rear view
mirror.   I don't consider either of those attributes to be a feature.

This is not a justification to use the high beams as running lights, this
is a reason to have a separate set of running lights.

If I remember correctly, GM made the same foolish engineering decision
regarding running lights.  I thought BMW knew better....

Actually, no.  The high beams at reduced intensity are the best option
for two reasons.

One:  They are more apt to get the attention of other drivers as they
are fairly bright, even at reduced intensity.  Two:  If you burn one of
them out (due to them being constantly on) you will not lose any of the
more important light functions: signalling turns, or low beams.  Don't
forget, not all cars come equiped with fog lights.  Having fog lights
where I live is completely unnecesary as we seldom get real fog.

I don't get how BMW can be stupid enough to use the high beams as DRLs.
Turn signals, fog lights or low beams at a reduced voltage would have
been much better...

Ulf

That is called "Daytime Running Lights" or DRLs for short.

This link should help you locate the module to remove.
http://www.unofficialbmw.com/e36/electrical/e36_daytime_running_lights.html

i have a 325is 95 and the high beams on on as soon as i turn on my car
.. they are quite a bit dimmer then if i turn on my lights .. i know
there suposed to be like that but i want to know how make them not come
on untill i want them to.